Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

The case for retaining single-sex mass toilets alongside any unisex provision **Title edited by MNHQ at the request of the OP**

158 replies

haXXor · 22/06/2018 23:03

On the upskirting thread, I mentioned that I had googled for shoe cameras and found a vendor. The vendor's website was a real eyeopener. They are based in Shenzen in China, the electronics manufacturing capital of the world, so they have easy access to the manufacturing facilities needed to make microelectronic devices.

Amongst their range of products, I found two toilet brushes with hidden cameras in, from as little as US$212 (~£160 at time of writing). That's a pretty low barrier to acquisition. There are dozens of convincing shower gel and shampoo bottles to leave in gym or workplace showers or to film showering flatmates.

They also have a range of shoe cameras, including one that shows, in the illustrative image, a man looking a picture of a woman's knicker-clad vulva on a computer screen. Many of the item descriptions have "we are not responsible if this camera is used for illegal activities, this is a home security camera and should be treated as such, with responsibility" appended: these arseholes know exactly what the buyers of their wares are going to do with them, otherwise they wouldn't try to claim innocence with their pathetic figleaf disclaimer.

That the owners of this website will so brazenly monetise female objectification is proof that patriarchy and misogyny are real.

Anyway, on to why this makes me demand that single-sex mass toilets are retained alongside any unisex provision installed for non-binary and trans people.

On another thread, we discussed criminology and security theory models for keeping women safe and I outlined the Swiss Cheese model to explain why we need multiple layers of defence against predatory males attacking females. Filming a woman or girl in a place where they reasonably expected privacy is an attack on her privacy and dignity, and the Sexual Offences Act 2006 agrees with me here, voyeurism is a crime.

Assume that we have a male who has bought a toilet brush camera, or a door hook camera, or a cross-head screw camera, and wishes to place it into a toilet that women will use. He will put his camera into a suitable pocket or bag and go to his chosen women's loo.

  • If the toilet is a mass toilet and designated women-only, a man walking in will attract attention and he may be challenged by passersby and stopped from entering. If he manages to get in unspotted, he may find women in the toilet, who will challenge him and call for management or the police. Even if the mass female-only toilet is unoccupied when he enters, he could be walked in on whilst setting his camera up and be stopped that way. That's two cheese layers, plus the deterrent effect of the fear of being caught in the act.
  • If the toilet is a single occupant female toilet, he might get challenged on the way in or out, but once he is inside, he locks the door, and he has all the time he wants to set his camera up without anyone catching him in the act. That's one cheese layer.
  • If the toilet is a single occupant unisex toilet, he walks right in unchallenged, he locks the door, and he has all the time he wants to set his camera up without anyone catching him in the act. That's zero cheese layers.

There ought to be, and isn't in many cases, another layer of cheese: cleaners spotting the toilet brush/hook/extra screw and investigating and reporting. This assumes that the same cleaners are cleaning the loos every day and learning what "right" looks like for that loo. With cleaners increasingly being temps, they might not have that consistent exposure, and they may not have a clear reporting line for that kind of anomaly. Plus, if they have no stability, they will have no sense of pride in their work and hence not care. I know that when I was a temp minwage cleaner, I didn't care. When I was a permanant and reasonably well-paid computer operator, I learned what "right" looked like in my machine room and flagged anomalies quickly.

Other than fighting for single-sex spaces as a right (not a service provider option) and for stability of employment for cleaners, what else can we do to prevent men from invading our privacy like this?

OP posts:
Gentlygently · 23/06/2018 07:12

My position is I want to be clear what any sign on the toilet means. If it says women I want it to be single sex. If it includes self-Id ‘women’ it should be labelled unisex. That way I do the correct risk assessment before entering.

Pratchet · 23/06/2018 06:19

Cornish: Why wouldn't it encourage it when men would have 100 per cent access to toilets with impunity to toilets that women use? Your comment makes no sense tbh.

thebewilderness · 23/06/2018 06:19

Why bother with laws when men will just break them.
Meanwhile the UN is trying to get sex segregated facilities built so that women and girls can participate in the public sphere with fewer rapes.

womanformallyknownaswoman · 23/06/2018 06:16

Great post OP - highlighting the real, present dangers 51% of the population face. And the vileness of the men who would use such equipment.

Of course, single-sex facilities are necessary - if the 0.6 want unisex they can make their own case for extra instead of appropriating scarce women-only spaces. If they wanted women's support, they would have had a very different approach ie trying to get women onside instead of alienating them.

What strikes me about the content of many of the pro-changesex camp is their lack of empathy for the grave risks facing children and teens using toilets etc - they should be protected not left as prey. And mothers and fathers know best in this regard.

Constant misrepresentation is this users MO.
I just scroll past the poster's comments as they are no more than shit-stirring.

Any comment with their name on I know they have obfuscated information and made unvalidated assertions to cause offence and provoke - ignore

CornishPasty82 · 23/06/2018 06:05

Op, this is no evidence against unisex toilets at all. Sadly, women and children (!!!) are already being filmed (very rarely fortunately in single sex spaces. It is easy enough for men to gain access to these spaces when nobody is there/if they are the cleaner or caretaker or pretend to be such person. Single sex toilets isn’t going to prevent this sick habit, and there is no evidence that having unisex toilets will encourage it.

TerfsUp · 23/06/2018 05:47

Constant misrepresentation is this users MO.

I just scroll past the poster's comments as they are no more than shit-stirring.

TerfsUp · 23/06/2018 05:46

Seconding Pratchet's request.

thebewilderness · 23/06/2018 01:54

Constant misrepresentation is this users MO.

Pratchet · 23/06/2018 01:03

People can have all the mixed sex facilities they want so long as female sex-specific spaces remain. There is no reason for trans people to object to using mixed sex facilities: there are plenty of women (see previous threads ad infinitum) who are totes cool with sharing spaces with men so trans'folk' won't be outed.

Any objection can only be with the motive that female sex-specific spaces must be destroyed.

Pratchet · 23/06/2018 01:00

So presumably there is a unanimous agreement that trans women should not be expected to use unisex toilets? They are as vulnerable as any other women

Can you support this claim
They are as vulnerable as any other women
Please cite relevant statistics for the UK.

Original poster
haXXor · 23/06/2018 00:59

I've asked MNHQ to rename the thread as my original title was a poor choice.

OP posts:
Original poster
haXXor · 23/06/2018 00:25

@Snappity, there's also an argument that male violence against other males who wish to be perceived and treated as women is a male problem for males to solve. If males didn't have the sense of entitlement about women that underpins so much of their violence, that website wouldn't exist.

OP posts:
Original poster
haXXor · 23/06/2018 00:18

@sarahcarer I did a DuckDuckGo search for toilet camera and the entire first page was porn links apart from two shopping site links. Guys can get paid money for filming women on the loo through ad revenue on the uploaded videos. I don't want me pissing to be in someone's wank bank, especially if there is a possibility that my face could end up on camera. I don't want the possibility that a colleague could clandestinely film me emptying my menstrual cup.

OP posts:
spontaneousgiventime · 23/06/2018 00:16

So presumably there is a unanimous agreement that trans women should not be expected to use unisex toilets?

I don't agree at all!

How many people who present as opposite to their birth sex keep their genitalia? Reports suggest the vast majority. I don't want to share intimate spaces with anyone who has the opposite genitalia to me. I also don't want to share with anyone who wasn't socialised as I was. I want single sex facilities.

ALittleBitofVitriol · 23/06/2018 00:15

I totally agree with your op, and have also been frustrated by the naive cries of 'unisex everything!' We know how that will go. Cocky males will take up the space and women will just quietly stop using it.

Original poster
haXXor · 23/06/2018 00:08

@Snappity sigh see my immediately previous post.

...the FWR majority view seems to be that we don't regard the very small number of transwomen with gender dysphoria who are receiving medical care as a threat. In any case, I was talking clearly about men. Men would be unequivocally allowed into unisex spaces, all of them. They vastly outnumber the gender dysphoric transwomen.

This thread isn't about whether transwomen should be allowed in the ladies, it's about whether the ladies should exist.

Obviously, for the competent guardian to be competent, bystanders and women using the toilet do need to be able to challenge anyone who looks like a man, even if they are in a skirt. If we can't, we lose the safety granted by the competent guardian. This will mean that early transitioners will be challenged, but this is for the safety of everyone, and they may prefer to use the unisex loo or they may prefer to be challenged with a much smaller risk of being spied on.

OP posts:
SarahCarer · 23/06/2018 00:03

I may have overreacted. I really feel we need more and clarity around them being for anyone not only disabled people - that is why we need more (so disabled people still have the access they need). I wouldn't live in fear of a peeping Tom. It doesn't seem worth entertaining the idea to me but I can understand why others do.

Original poster
haXXor · 22/06/2018 23:57

@SarahCarer Where, at any point, did I say take them away? I said "The case against only offering unisex" and later "this makes me demand that single-sex mass toilets are retained alongside any unisex provision" and in a comment "giving wheelchair users an option to use single sex spaces".

I appreciate that there will be some people (transmen, fathers with daughters, non-binary people, etc) who want unisex single occupant provision. Unisex provision isn't the one-size-fits-all solution I thought it could be (Pratchet, we should have listened to you) because it's so easy to fit a spy camera. These will be targeted at women, so it is women who need to retreat to single-sex spaces.

Perhaps I should have titled my thread better, to be for female-only mass loos, rather than against unisex ones. I will ask MNHQ to change it.

@Scotsheather There aren't too many M2Fs who pass that well and the FWR majority view seems to be that we don't regard the very small number of transwomen with gender dysphoria who are receiving medical care as a threat. In any case, I was talking clearly about men. Men would be unequivocally allowed into unisex spaces, all of them. They vastly outnumber the gender dysphoric transwomen.

This thread isn't about whether transwomen should be allowed in the ladies, it's about whether the ladies should exist.

OP posts:
scotsheather · 22/06/2018 23:54

Certainly, giving wheelchair users an option to use single sex spaces would help. The Americans already do this.

While I see the thinking behind this how does it apply to a disabled person out with a carer the opposite sex? I thought that was the point of unisex disabled toilets. It seems impossible to cover every eventuality here.

SarahCarer · 22/06/2018 23:52

The benefits outweigh the risks in my opinion. For me, for my kids, for trans people.

SarahCarer · 22/06/2018 23:51

Better for dealing with menstrual leaks in private. Better for fathers with daughters. Better for younger boys.

Snappity · 22/06/2018 23:51

"I'm fed up with mixed sex toilets being seen as a miracle solution."

So presumably there is a unanimous agreement that trans women should not be expected to use unisex toilets? They are as vulnerable as any other women.

SarahCarer · 22/06/2018 23:49

They would solve a lot of other problems alongside trans issues. Toilets are an issue that pushes my GNC daughter towards trans because she regularly gets challenged by kids or glared at by adults. I've posted on other threads about this. There are lots and lots of practical reasons why single unisex facilities are a great way forward. This particular thread makes me think maybe we need a combination everywhere. But we definitely need more unisex facilities of the accessible variety. Space for a parent with two children. Low sinks.

spontaneousgiventime · 22/06/2018 23:44

I'm fed up with mixed sex toilets being seen as a miracle solution.

Exactly. They are not a panacea they will give people with malicious/pervy intentions free reign to do all sorts of recording of women. We do need single sex spaces and this is why.

Original poster
haXXor · 22/06/2018 23:41

@Pratchet you were right all along and I didn't see it. Then I saw those toilet brushes. FFS even a working hand dryer with a built-in camera. If men applied the resourcefulness that they show when designing these devices to making sure every child had clean water and school toilets, they'd make the world shine.

OP posts: