Man using women's toilets

I am asking you to clarify. I have read your posts and I stated how they are coming across to me and asked you to clarify.

If you won't clarify what your post about risk meant, then it is up to others to assume what you meant.

So I will try again, what do you mean by 'personal safety risk as an inappropriate justification'?

Just like I was trying to work out what you were prioritising and what you were dismissing as not being a priority.

Provost is fucked

thing is when someone does me a favour that might get themselves in trouble I keep my trap shut

i don’t broadcast it….but i do understand that in this case broadcasting is the whole point 😀

SM also claims the Provost has given him and all males 'approval' to use Aberdeen Council female toilets.

I highly doubt this is true, but it could provide useful response from ACC.

Because no one local refers to them as ‘Aberdeen City Council’.

Dead give away from OP.

And here he is at the women's changing rooms. Delighted with himself.

Seems Sophie Molly has mounted a one man campaign taking selfies outside ladies' toilets.

I really do feel for the women and girls of Aberdeen.

Edit: how old is this man? What is with the bows and hello kitty shtick?

How on earth do you ken fa bides where?!

How does one tell the difference between predators in isolated spaces who you say pose a threat, from generic men with ‘a label’ who you assume don’t pose a threat?

Does labelling their self suddenly absolve them of being able to cause harm or deem them no risk? It’s like the argument ‘it’s CIS men that’s the problem not trans women’. Both are men. How can we tell the difference in intentions because one may present differently or say the magic words ‘I’m a woman’.

Do they have to wear a t-shirt or a badge for women to suddenly go ‘aaah this man isn’t a threat! Lucky for me he’s got a label!’.

On a side note - I recognise the other loo as well 😁

🎶 The northern loos of Aberdeen...🎶🎶🎶

(Anyone up this way will get the musical nod)

Please don’t extrapolate and make assumptions about others. In the same way I won’t assume you’re a bigot

yes this is fair enough

I guess you mean in it in the same way i am assuming you are not a bigot with no respect for the law

good habit to be in

Him and the rest of his creepy gang

This man has chosen to use his supposed permission to bully women on the internet. He made it the council’s problem to sort out. Had he quietly used the toilet, it would have likely gone unnoticed. As he didn’t, then women have little choice but to call on the law or be overrun by other bullies like him.

Nope.

You’re assuming I’m dismissing a need because I’m pointing out use of personal safety risk as an inappropriate justification.

I’ve not made any comment on the need or not. I’ve also not made any comment on any other risk.

Please don’t extrapolate and make assumptions about others. In the same way I won’t assume you’re a bigot.

Once the guy in question has plastered this all over twitter it's political not personal.
It is a fuck you to the Supreme court and a guideline to all the TRA's on what they should do and whose names they should use.
It's not just some guy quietly peeing in the ladies on the bosses say so. It's a political campaign with an agenda.
So yes - now it becomes my business too.

As it happens I've met the individual in the photo, just on the street, in a queue. He was making great play about being a 'woman' and was watching my reaction. I pretended not to notice but it was intimidating.

I want to be in single sex spaces whether going to the loo or a changing room. I definitely don't want to walk into a loo in the Town House to find him there.

You seem to be dismissing the need that female people have to have spaces that are single sex, excluding all male people. Not just for safety, but for privacy and dignity too.

You talk about risk, but you seem to selective about what risk women should be concerned about if I read this post correctly. Why?

The risks are applicable and are not ideologically driven. And anyway the clarified law applies to many other areas not just toilets - same sex care for very vulnerable women.

There are plenty of vulnerable cohorts of men at risk of violence from other men. That is for men to sort out, not women. Men made it very clear what they felt about our risk from violent men when they were cheerleading de facto self ID and calling us N@zis for objecting.
Report Aberdeen Council to EHRC

Actually, I know perfectly well that predators in isolated spaces are threats.

Not generic men or women in toilets with particular labels. A vulnerable man is at far more risk in an isolated, infrequently used gents, than any woman is in a large, busy ladies.

But that realisation comes from approaching things from an actual risk perspective, rather than claiming risk to pursue an ideological agenda. Manage risk and highlight risks when they’re real. But please don’t extrapolate them to universal situations when they’re not applicable.

Oh they can do this as well.

I was in the Town House recently at an event - I even recognise the loo in question. Don't be so bloody cheeky to other women. (Assuming you're a woman that is 🙄😂)

Absolutely fair enough.

It affects you.

Unlike any other poster on this thread.

(Although I am being pretty open minded about whether it actually affects you, given it’s specific to the town house and not many people actually use the town house, but I’ll assume you do as you’ve said it affects you).

You know perfectly well that a woman in the men’s toilet is not a threat, whereas a man in the women’s toilet is a very credible threat.

@DreamTheMoors “It shouldn’t take any able-bodied woman 10 minutes or longer to use the bathroom unless they have urinary or bowel issues.”

Urinary or bladder issues are extremely common , particularly following childbirth and in and following menopause. It is by no means a small minority.

People with IBS or nerve damage or similar have the joy of not being able to go immediately despite urge or having to go repeatedly even immediately after one evacuation. You have menopausal flooding. You have women fearing they may be miscarrying checking themselves out etc etc. These issues affect vast numbers of women. They are always going to take longer.

And what about the mothers herding babies and small children. Have to get toddler to perform and sorted pre yourself etc.

And if a women wants a quick primp - to check skirt not tucked in pants, or tights laddered, or to brush hair or put on lipstick - or just five mins in semi private single sex space to gather herself and regroup, why is that an awful thing? Isn’t it part of a night out for example? Why is it that a woman at work wanting to present a professional groomed appearance (which, like it or not, most often involves touching up make up and brushing hair) should not have single sex , adequately sized facilities to do that?

Women are 51 per cent of the population and their needs - both biological and social - should be met. We don’t need to be apologetic about having different needs and desires to men. We do plenty to justify that!

I had to laugh at this part in particular -

If you’re a user of the town house and it’s an issue to you then fair enough. If not, kindly don’t impose your campaign agenda on things paid for by others.

For the best part of a decade, organisations across Scotland which receive money from their local council and/or from the Scottish Government, have refused service to or caused women to self exclude from the services they have paid for through their taxes because of a 'campaign agenda' set by lobbying groups. ERCC was a prime example of this. Women in Edinburgh and the Lothians have had to rely on JKR to provide them with a single sex rape crisis service while paying for the service they couldn't access!

And this campaign agenda became institutional capture. And it was all crap. As proven by the SC judgement.

But now, asking local government to actually follow the law and not pander to activists is a 'campaign agenda on things paid for by others'!

Oh, and for anyone who doesn't know, the activist in question is the one who declared that he was going to 'shite on JKR' at a recent protest while Maggie Chapman (an elected representative) nodded along approvingly. He's also making himself a nuisance by making malicious reports to anyone he thinks might listen and he's one of the activists who stood outside the women's toilets at the Bon Accord centre with unhinged signs, creating a unpleasant environment for any woman or girl wishing to use the toilets. He's a dangerous man.