A query about third spaces

I think sticks post has been misunderstood.

I read it to mean that TW going into the ladies face being beaten up by men who see them go in, while there don't seem to be many examples of then being beaten up in the gents. So they should go to the gents. Because it's the right place, and safer

TheInebriati

There are no laws about toilets, it was social convention. Which has now been thoroughly eroded.

Another thought.

If you're a man out cruising or cottaging and you find a man to have sex with, is it safer to do it in the ladies or the gents?

Although most men know where the pick up toilets are I think and avoid them if it's not their thing. Which raises a question. I assume, given that most men are straight, and cottaging is not something sought out by all gay men, why have men not agitated to get it stopped?

And if you were a straight man and got caught short near a known set of public toilets, would you feel more comfortable in the ladies or the gents?

I'm no expert on cottaging obv :D and I have read articles by men arguing it's an important part of gay culture.

But women do not hook up in the same way in public bogs.

The idea that public toilets are a place for sex is a very male thing. Which led to the 'would you want her in the toilet with your husband' thing. With a person in sterotypical 'sexy lady' garb in the gents with all the men looking. I looked for the pic but it seems to have vanished from the internet...

@OneEndedStick Have you noticed that men are mostly larger, more powerful and more aggressive than women? That is one of many reasons why women don't generally attack men.

I see where you are trying to go with your theory
about the women's toilets being dangerous but honestly it is bollocks.

Men getting violent when they see man going into the ladies along with "their" woman/girl. Now, that would be more likely to lead to violence than being a gender non-comforming man in the gents I suspect.

If my DH and friends saw a man in the modern TRA style of dress, i.e. pornified, hanging round the loos where their daughters were changing and he made a move to go in, then yes, I bet there would be a confrontation.

If the same pornified TRA came into the gents they would say nothing, do nothing but would joke about it between themselves forever. There would have been no confrontation.

Stick

I mean of course they can all come in now, that's kind of the point.

And when the nasty scary big violent man who picks on people (and men like this usually go after anyone and everyone, including women), he says actually I'm a woman and bingo locked in with a load of sitting targets.

Are you talking to stick, or op, midge?

Another point.

Loads of men, especially teens and young adults, have been GNC at least since the late 60s. Bouffy hair, makeup, flouncy clothes, eyeliner etc etc

I see men on the tube all the time whose look is well outside masculine standards. When I was young my male Goth friends had eyeliner, nail varnish, long hair, tight shirts open quite a way down the chest etc.

I don't know anyone who got serious trouble.

If a man is a nasty violent bully he will pick on anyone different.

Why do some men get the protection of heading on into the ladies, and not others?

None of it makes any sense.

If the women's toilets are so dangerous why are they fighting us to gain legal access?

I'm guessing the stats aren't used because they will show the people most at risk are women and the perpetrators of most sexual violence against us are biologically male.

So you want us to spend time find real data to disprove your anecdote?
To be clear do you want evidence from the UK or USA?

They haven't repurposed them!

The men have, presumably due to anxiety over crapping in s cubicle in the actual gents.

No it's not yet perfect, and disabled people are much, much, much lower priority and lower profile and still much less fashionable a cause, they don't wield the power or marketing or ability for political capture that this lobby does.

The main reason is that people simply don't like seeing visibly disabled people out and about. Want to become invisible ? Sit in a wheelchair.

It has further to go. But a lot happened very quickly once it was in law and LA agency teams began to enforce it.

As with buses, all disabled people can see is their hard won concessions being pissed away in an instant.

Although at least ShinyFootball s workplace are refreshingly honest, and have repurposed the accessible toilets, since the actual provision for the less able in the workplace hasn't advanced much in the past 25 years. Although what's the point of providing accessible toilets, if a person can't get a bus to work in the first place ?

What does that really mean though? It means being accepted as their biological sex really. In which case why can’t they use the facilities of their biological sex?

Because of the fear of male violence. Find the petition I mentioned upthread if you want the POV of some TW who do use the facilities of their sex but who see the need for third spaces.

The accessible toilet in our office is used exclusively by men when they want a shit.

It's unfortunate as the smell permeates out to the lift area where the guests come in

I do think that men tend to help themselves to things that aren't necessarily for them more than women tbh which is another issue.

It is sexism, OP.

I am standing up for this, and spending the hours writing letters and arguing here for the females who stand to lose any space at all to give males more choice.

I see plenty of females agonising over those males and solutions for those males.

I see very few females off this site giving or being allowed to give a second thought to what losing single sex spaces will do to females, and most importantly I see no activist male born people caring about those females, what will happen to those females or seeing their exclusion as a problem .

I'm afraid this has dramatically reduced my interest in their agenda and their issues need to be theirs to solve. I've got enough to do as a female trying to protect the females that neither they, nor mermaids, nor Stonewall, nor any other very well funded very loud groups with big political influence care about. We may may just have got the government to notice that female people's needs might matter too - and you can see the rage everywhere from the TRA lobby about this.

Sexism is in every single part of this.

My understanding is that it took years of pushing. Getting it up the agenda. Lobbying individual places /councils to get it done etc.

I was involved years ago in building work providing some of it. It took decades to get it into law and LA regulations: this is what happens when the lobby group involved isn't a powerful one. However once it was in law and the process was begun, it moved quickly and expectations were shifted from we can't/there's no space/it's too hard/ it's too expensive to realising that it had to be got on with and funding grants were there to help.

No it's not yet perfect, and disabled people are much, much, much lower priority and lower profile and still much less fashionable a cause, they don't wield the power or marketing or ability for political capture that this lobby does. It has further to go. But a lot happened very quickly once it was in law and LA agency teams began to enforce it.

The problem of danger seems to be related especially to tiolets in certain settings and often those places could be dangerous for a variety of people who could be seen as targets. A lot of them are places that involve drugs or alcohol

The night time economy and toilet provision in such circumstances, is a different kettle of fish to that of providing full cubicle but unisex toilets in a day time office environment.

third spaces

I think this thread is a clear demonstration it has - no one need worry about that. Well, no one able anyway

We do hear you......and it is not that we aren't aware of the need for disabled toilets, it is that this particular issue is one of ^male/female/unisex provisions/'third'd spaces.

No matter how anyone identifies, if they are disabled they should have appropriate provision.

is if they are accepted and accept themselves as trans people).

What does that really mean though? It means being accepted as their biological sex really. In which case why can’t they use the facilities of their biological sex?

It's a good point. But while I don't believe that trans people are the opposite sex, I do believe that gender dysphoria is real. If people like Blanchard are right and, for some people, medical transition is the best route to easing dysphoria, then I think we need to accommodate people who choose that route. That would include people who no longer look like their biological sex.

is if they are accepted and accept themselves as trans people).

What does that really mean though? It means being accepted as their biological sex really. In which case why can’t they use the facilities of their biological sex?

I am really not convinced that violence to transwomen in male toilets is an issue in most settings. In fact I would say that violence in male toilets isn't really a common thing in many settings where I live - most toilets are not dangerous.

The problem of danger seems to be related especially to tiolets in certain settings and often those places could be dangerous for a variety of people who could be seen as targets. A lot of them are places that involve drugs or alcohol.

Maybe the real issue is making regular male and female toilets in those settings safer.

I agree with you OP that it is important to keep people's genuine struggles in mind - all people.
Some problems don't have a one-size-fits-all solution.

There are even growing issues around fully enclosed mixed sex toilets- voyeurism.

As the tech has got better, hidden cameras become more and more of an issue. South Korean men are ahead of the game on this but it's becoming more common here.

Before we get a women do it to, I'd be surprised if women putting hidden cameras in the gents or the ladies was anything much of s thing at all. Voyeurism offences are another one where it is massively predominantly a male crime, and not an uncommon one at all.

OP, I think it was a good question and I agree with you when you say
But it possible to hold two ideas in ones mind at a time, and I would also - in an ideal world- like to see others catered for. That does not mean at my or at other women’s expense.

I think a danger is that this becomes a situation where women are told that, unless we find a solution trans people are happy with, we can't have single sex spaces. But the flip side is that, if someone does come up with a practical way to accommodate trans people, I think it becomes harder for TRAs to paint us as people who simply hate trans people and want them to be miserable.

Also, I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but I do think that trans-specific single-occupant bathrooms are a good idea, so it wasn't your imagination that some people suggest that. (This is because I think the only way to get to a sustainable social situation re trans people is if they are accepted and accept themselves as trans people).

I take the point of other people though that creating new spaces will be difficult, and it's important that this doesn't encroach on spaces for people with disability. It's a conundrum.

See that wee soft spot you have, OP? The weak spot? The compassion and sympathy for those "being thrown to the wolves"? Give it time. It'll harden.

I think this thread is a clear demonstration it has - no one need worry about that. Well, no one able anyway.

See that wee soft spot you have, OP? The weak spot? The compassion and sympathy for those "being thrown to the wolves"?
Give it time. It'll harden.