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

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

There are good arguments why enclosed unisex toilets don't work for many women. I don't think he's bothering to think about those, but am open to changing my mind.

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.

I give you the list of the Honorary President, managing director and committee members of the British Toilet Association.

All male, men and one transwoman. I haven't looked much further into their motivations, might be worth a further dig if anyone has the time/resources as a way to combat their lobbying for gender neutral loos:

www.btaloos.co.uk/?page_id=7

The BTA's 100 members seem to have raised their committee (not sure how, it doesn't mention elections) in 2016 and their last news was last November. There is also another website that fizzled out www.casuallyplanned.co.uk/ around 2012.

They do have an advert for the event "Femmes et WC" which may explain why a certain poster is nipping over to France to spend a penny

And no it isn't the only reason or the most compelling reason for female only spaces, just one element of why they are needed.

My concern is not "feelz" but the fact that if female only spaces didn't exist, some women would not be able to leave the house, not by their own choice necessarily.

I do not think religious sentiments should have more weight than the fact that women want women only spaces. In fact "I want women only spaces." is a complete sentence and does not require further explanation.

The argument is that a woman from such a culture are yet more sensitive to the presence of men in their private spaces and would simply not enter them -- whether on not males from her religion knew about it or not

That's still irrelevant as to whether objectively single sex spaces are needed. This board regularly posits the view that "feelz" should not inform law or policy.

If anybody wants to argue that somehow women from a particular religion will get extra told off, shunned or harmed by others of that religion if they use mixed sex facilities, that is the precise opposite of an argument in favour of helping women obey those religious rules.

But this is not the argument. The argument is that a woman from such a culture are yet more sensitive to the presence of men in their private spaces and would simply not enter them -- whether on not males from her religion knew about it or not.

sky fairy
Why do some atheists descend into this kind of irrelevant cliche?

without a man being in close vicinity *they would be called a groomer, under any other circumstances.

If keeping spaces single sex is a good thing the argument shouldn't need to be propped up by special religious pleading.

Ok, then NO, I don’t want my daughter or I to share with men, because they are the sex most likely to intimidate, sexually assault women, up skirt, plant hidden cameras in female spaces, rape, cat call, harass, etc. I want my right to privacy, dignity and safety, or even feelings of safety maintained. I want my previously abused daughter to be able to use female spaces, without the fear of males being in there. I want to be able to go into a cubicle and change her sanitary wear, without men overhearing our discussion.

I want my right to say “no!” to being bullied and cajoled into sharing those spaces, to be enough of a reason. If a man or woman tried to manipulate, plead and guilt a female into accepting that they have no right to perform intimidate care without a man being in close vicinity would be called a groomer, under any other circumstances.

I actually find the religious argument irrelevant as well as quite offensive. As an atheist or just a plain ole female I want sex segregated spaces when I'm semi-naked for my safety and my dignity.

What a particular bunch of males sky fairy's arbitrary rules for women are is irrelevant.

Either all women need the protection because they are women or none of them do. Nobody is extra special on top of that.

If anybody wants to argue that somehow women from a particular religion will get extra told off, shunned or harmed by others of that religion if they use mixed sex facilities, that is the precise opposite of an argument in favour of helping women obey those religious rules.

This all sounds like a preformed solution searching for an opportunity, carefully presented to media as a response to an entirely unrelated problem by a rather opaque group whos interest in the matter are not clearly outlined

Very interesting

There is no need to cite religious beliefs to support the case

I give you the one woman who said NO.

She is the only one who matters in this. Her reasons are hers and not up for debate or attempting to guilt her or change her mind.

It's not me by the way, I generally do not care in 99% of the times I'm in the loo.
But she matters.
I'm listening to her, I can see why she might say no men in my loo. And she has the absolute right to say it.

Women don't need to use religion or assaults or anything else as a reason. Simply not wanting to share an intimate space with an unknown penis haver is enough.

We all have a right to drop our draws away from males. Religion or personal circumstances can support that argument but just not wanting to alone is enough.

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'.

This.

Hmmm - I don't think you can hand wave away women's religious/cultural requirements like that.

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'.

I'm quite appreciative of the fact that unisex toilets would be absolutely unthinkable here (& colleagues & students who have encountered them on visits to Europe are unanimous in condemning them as disgusting, weird & upsetting to use).

There are all sorts of other problems in cultures that segregate the sexes of course - it's not usually 'just the single sex loos & changing rooms & sport & prisons, everything else is an egalitarian utopia where we all muck in together' - but I do find the attitude to female spaces to be a definite positive, in pragmatic terms. 🧐.

Supporting patriarchal religions and recognising that certain women need to be able to leave the house and participate in public life are really quite different things

All women need to be able to leave the house etc. etc. If sex segregated spaces are a good thing then they should be a good thing for all women. There is no need to cite religious beliefs to support the case.

Supporting patriarchal religions and recognising that certain women need to be able to leave the house and participate in public life are really quite different things.

I can understand its difficult when you have a child or person of the oppersite sex with you who needs help toileting.

But realistically, pre teens they would go in the ladies with you. After teenn disabled loo and if not avaliable, you need to make a judgment call. Personally I would take a disabled male into the mens. If I needed to go myself I would take him into the disabled loo with me. I can hold it so no issue of queuing.

It's not ideal but you can't expect all women to put aside their comfort and dignity just incase there is a que for the disabled toilets.

If keeping spaces single sex is a good thing the argument shouldn't need to be propped up by special religious pleading.
Yes this.

Is that a subtle way of saying “go back where you came from”?

No it's a not so subtle way of saying that in this country we have seperation of religion and state. State shouldn't be supporting religions that advocation regression of women's rights.

Agree. If you want to live in a country where public toilets are run in a way that satisfies the requirements of your (fictional) religion, this isn’t it

Is that a subtle way of saying “go back where you came from”?

Is it? I saw it more as commenting on the weirdness of co-opting oppressive religious views which insist on compulsory and unnecessary sex segregation to support your (general your) case for sex segregation.

If keeping spaces single sex is a good thing the argument shouldn't need to be propped up by special religious pleading.

That wateraid leaflet is fascinating.

Wateraid is a fantastic charity that does some fantastic work in developing countries.

But those are countries where womens rights are decades if not a century behind us. Where oppressive often religious regimes are the norm.

The case studies within that leaflet are india Mozambique etc. They are talking about areas if those countries where women's toilets dont necessarily even exist. Some places the water supply didnt even exist pre wateraid

I didn't see one mention of a developed or European countries in it.

There is no way the "repression of women" in this country even has the same vocabulary as the repression and degradation of women in some of those countries.

Actually if you look at the requirements, unisex toilets in Sweden (Which is generally considered ahead in terms of gender equality) for example would meet their requirements

I dont think even men want this. I've noticed at work, when the men want a bit more privacy i.e. to do something a bit stinky, they will go in the disabled loo (judging by the smell as you go past!).

So I honestly do not believe they would want to share with female colleagues. I cannot imagine how awkward it would be. Whoever comes up with this stuff, cannot be asking the general public what they want.