Express and Star article - head of British Toilet Association pushing for mixed loos

The whole of Lord Lucas's original question demonstrates that he understands women's needs.

Tanni's statement demonstrates why we need an appointed second chamber. An elected second chamber would be full of the same career politicians as the first, not a diverse collection of non-political people including former wheelchair athletes who use catheters.

I thought that statement was very brave and honest of her, MrsSnippy

Apart from the initial statement - which I agree wholeheartedly with - the whole of the rest of that was an attempt to stuff the needs of females out of sight and virtue signal about poor, poor males.

In case anyone missed it, here is the link to a debate in the Lords on this very issue. This contribution from Baroness Grey-Thompson is worth highlighting but I recommend reading the whole debate:

"If there is somebody in an accessible toilet who needs to be in there for a long period of time, the only other option I have is to use the women’s toilet. In that instance, I have to go with the door open. I am not sure whether I have publicly declared this before, but I am incontinent; I have to catheterise. I have to sit with my chair in the door of the toilet. Without going into the details, I am in a potentially vulnerable position when I catheterise myself. I need to wash my hands before and straight afterwards; it is even more difficult when I have my period. My biggest fear is that someone will run away with my chair for a bit of a laugh. As a disabled person, that is a very vulnerable position to be in."

hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-02-24/debates/D9459D1B-FADF-4765-AB3F-F55D4B322060/details

Apostasy is punishable by state execution in some Muslim countries and will result in anything from shunning to "honour" murder elsewhere. Quitting Islam is not consequence-free. Excluding Muslim women from public life is not a feminist act. But then we knew already that the individual in question is a male privilege activist.

yes, sorry -

who's going to tell the Islamic councils and leaders, Orthodox Jewish leaders, Jehovah's Witness leaders et al that they have to shut up shop and stop having a religion now?

Because some vague stuff about subjugation of women that never mattered at all when only women minded, but most importantly it's getting in the way of very important males doing whatever they want to control females and female spaces. In a highly subjugating but much more politically correct way.

Oh I remember that argument! It was by a certain Women's Officer who said if someone's religion meant having boundaries against males and being difficult about letting males do whatever they wanted, then the women should just stop having that religion. Now. Because politically incorrect and stuff.

No grip on reality whatsoever, and pretty sure that WO had never spoken to any Islamic group or council or had the faintest experience of knowing people in the situation they were so casually hurling aside.

But continued evidence of very privileged and fantastically self centred and selfish male people without the faintest grasp of the realities of females, no interest in their needs or in listening to females, just demanding females enable them. While identifying as women. But a special sort of woman that has a say, is listened to, whose needs are cared about, who's feelings are important, whose lived experience matters, whose beliefs must be respected, who female people must centre and seek to please at all times ..... is male, in other words.

Honestly. Do you laugh or cry.

Then that’s the problem with a religion that subjugates and controls women, not with the law abiding people who use the toilets.

Taking away those women's few choices doesn't make her family's religion magically change. One could make the same argument about DV refuges: that women shouldn't need refuges because men shouldn't abuse. And it would be an equally ridiculous stance.

Which again is why the system we currently have is probably the one that works for the greatest number of people.

Which is the priority of public provision.

Then you provide the additional to and different from resources on top of that system. That's your inclusion.

Inclusiveness is not achieved by changing practice to something which excludes groups currently met by the provision. Inclusiveness does not actually mean 'making the political trans lobby happy'. Inclusiveness certainly doesn't mean changing female provision to something that doesn't meet the needs of many females and means some females now have no provision at all, so that a few males can be happier with more choice.

There's another paragraph I've typed and found myself wondering why the hell is anyone having to spell this out in small words?!

So many mainly women inconvenienced by toilets that don't cater to the mainly women who are carers of children and others and so little is done. Yet, some men call for unisex toilets because of those who are trans or who otherwise describe themselves as the sex they were not born as (and it is mainly born-men who want access to women's spaces), or they want to be able to jerk off imagining a naked woman peeing in the next cubical and the world MOVES. Yet as far as I can see it still isn't moving towards catering for women who have small children or who provide care for others.

I wonder if they are responsible for the ‘Parisian style’ outdoor urinals that I’ve seen? They are grim.

The BTA's push for gender neutral toilets may simply be a financial/capitalist one. Like WPATH it is a corporate organisation. How do you sell more toilets and air dryers? By getting more toilets and all existing toilets to be refitted.

As with WPATH and other corporate organisations, the needs and wants of the membership will overrule any public or health needs.

That these lobbying groups seem to be gaining traction is indicative of the failures in British democracy.

Public health and services should not be informed by industry lobby groups!

some women would not be able to leave the house, not by their own choice necessarily.

Then that’s the problem with a religion that subjugates and controls women, not with the law abiding people who use the toilets.

Women in abusive and controlling relationships are often prevented from using mixed sex facilities, not just religious women.

Well at least now if there is no buggy accessible loo you can leave the buggy just outside the cubical door with the door open a crack.

This is a good point and something I hadn't considered. While I always prefer private facilities, I can see that what we would likely end up with would probably be small, cramped and less than ideal, rather than what I'm picturing in my head.

Which again is why the system we currently have is probably the one that works for the greatest number of people. The number of women who would be inconvenienced by a change to either unisex shared (totally unacceptable in most countries) or unisex single user (would work for some but not others) is vastly greater than the number of trans people who refuse to use the facilities designated for their sex plus those raising objections based on having to accompany people in their care above.

Well at least now if there is no buggy accessible loo you can leave the buggy just outside the cubical door with the door open a crack.

I would not be doing that if there were men in the communal space. Not for my privacy or my kids safety.

And if it was all tiny cubicals what do you do? You can't leave the buggy outside with the door shut and you can't leave the door open if it's just into a open public space.

That would be my fear, that space constraints and money would inevitably result in spaces that just won't work for anyone who has a wheelchair or kids with them or even just a bunch of shopping bags. The ones in the restaurant worked for me, but I was alone with nothing to carry, and even then I occurred to me that they might be difficult to navigate after a few more drinks.

Has it? Well then I apologise. I am a frequent user of this board but don't engage much on the toilets issue. However "why should I explain/do you own research/how dare you ask us to do your labour for you" etc is the constant online call of the woke and it gets us nowhere if people can't actually ask genuine questions/discuss
issues and are simply met with hostility

Who was being hostile? I have had enough trying to explain why. If someone else wants to try then fine, but its often a lost cause. We get asked over and over to justify our gc position, when really we dont need to. The men who want the access should justify why they need it.

There are as has been pointed out by many others who disagree with gc about a billion threads on this subject now.
Most of which are helpfully named.

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

I know the type you're referring to and if we were to move to enclosed unisex, those are what we would get. Where your knees are under the sink. It wouldn't be lots of big cubicles.

There's also the question of how the unisex, single user loos are designed and laid out. I've seen both relatively large rooms with a grab rail for wheelchair users and enough space to navigate a chair or take in a stroller and another child who can walk by themselves too, and I've also seen poky little stalls that are barely big enough for a relatively slim person with no grab rails and definitely no room to take anything in with you (the latter was in a fancy restaurant, there was a row of them). The former might work for most, the latter definitely wouldn't work for many.

Thank you Heather for your explanation. I can definitely understand some of those concerns even if I don't personally share them.

As for this -

^This has been done to death.

I for one am sick of explaining anything. Why should we explain?^

Has it? Well then I apologise. I am a frequent user of this board but don't engage much on the toilets issue. However "why should I explain/do you own research/how dare you ask us to do your labour for you" etc is the constant online call of the woke and it gets us nowhere if people can't actually ask genuine questions/discuss issues and are simply met with hostility.

Sorry I mean if you don't like the idea of fully enclosedunisex
facilities, would you mind explaining why

This has been done to death.

I for one am sick of explaining anything. Why should we explain?
Single sex is either a good thing or a bad thing.
If we get unisex loos, prisons, sports etc, then we wont get single sex loos prisons and sports etc back for a very long time. If ever.

I'm hoping the posters who don't agree with fully enclosed, single sex facilities could help me understand why (this is a genuine, polite question). Because this often works better for my in many scenarios- if I have my 2 very young children with me and need more space, if I want to change my mooncup when I'm out (which I try never to do because it's so messy). Most coffee shops have a couple of unisex WCs- do people not use these because men also use them? Genuinely curious.

Those sorts of toilets are good because you can take the kids and/or a pram in with you, and I think when new toilets are built they should offer at least one of those alongside disabled toilets.

But in general I don't like them. I find the ques much longer because you have to wait for people to go toilet and wash and dry their hands. Im also still having to share the space with males who 50% of the time piss everywhere. I also find those toilets are always smelly and messy. I think because they are enclosed and because people tend to use them to poo because they are single units. I also feel obliged to be in and out quick and not check hair or makeup because I'm conscious others may be waiting to use the toilet.

The toilets we have now are fine. Single sex, bank of sinks and then several cubicles of toilets. Then add a family toilet, nappy change toilet and disabled toilets.

some women would not be able to leave the house, not by their own choice necessarily.

Then that’s the problem with a religion that subjugates and controls women, not with the law abiding people who use the toilets.

I'm an atheist, living in a Muslim country. I think privacy, dignity & safety plus I don't bloody want to share toilets with men are quite sufficient reasons for single sex provision.

But I wouldn't dismiss the fact that for practically every other woman in the country her reasons would be 'all of the above AND it is not acceptable in my religion or my culture'.

Yep. The fact that for some women their religion adds an extra layer of "nope, this is not acceptable" isn't the reason, it's one of many reasons why mixed sex toilets are not acceptable, and changing rooms even less so. "But they're OK with it in Sweden/France" is in itself a form of special pleading, as those are also different cultures with their own set of cultural rules around nudity etc that are not shared by most of the people in the UK.