Can we lay this to rest, once and for all?

The issue would be if the person was unable to reasonably go into either the men's or women's loos. In that case, if their transsexual status was caused by serious psychological issues, it's a medical problem that requires separate toilets.

We don’t.

My research indicates that women and girls don’t like facilities labelled gender neutral as they are dirtier and unsafe so gravitate back to the women’s.

I am confused as to what the REAL issues are....

My understanding is that only one person in 500 is trans (ie 0.2% from last census). Many of these will start using the appropriate single sex toilets. This we need to encourage, given it is now the law.

Which leaves the tiniest number wanting to use the disabled loos... is this really significant???

What does feel significant is if the disabled/accessible toilet is ALSO labelled Gender-Neutral because it does imply ANYONE can use it... it is almost an invitation. This surely is what we need to discourage? Understandably women waiting in outrageously long queues will dash in if this is how it is labelled.

I can understand that in certain places - eg schools and unis, given they have a higher number of gender-confused young - would need additional Fourth spaces ie gender neutral ... and possibly arts/theatre venues given they've drunk the Kool Aid.... but for most??? Why on earth do we need special toilets for such a tiny number of people, however loud they shout?

Even one time is too often.
Men are perfectly able to try dresses on at home.

How is it safer for them?

This!

Also there is an ambulant toilet which is a toilet with handrails that is for frailer people but those who can walk. There are regs for having ambulant toilets too. This frees up the disabled/accessible toilet to be used for those who need the features it provides.

No. Toilet use has always relied on some type of reliance everyone will do the right thing!

The reason it’s broken down is everyone is worried about speaking up.

Absolutely.
And not men (usually it is men in my experience) who want to read the paper whilst having a leisurely poo)…

They are.
With political correctness, many labels changed because it was thought that certain words and phrases were stigmatising or offensive - one of the changes was from “disabled toilet” to “accessible toilet”, just as it once changed from “handicapped toilet” to “disabled toilet”.

I’m disabled, and have been unable to access many places as they do not have adequate facilities available (typically when an older building has to retro-fit disability provisions). I, and people like me, need disabled facilities or we cannot participate in society. It really is as simple as that.

Think of the way women feel about males (of any and every presentation) using female spaces. Well, disabled people feel the same about non-disabled people using the disabled facilities - and we don’t usually even get the option of a non-mixed sex space.

I think people who use disabled or accessible toilets who don’t need to (ie are not disabled nor in the category of people who legitimately require the physical differences present in the modified facilities) are incredibly selfish, entitled and pathetic. Unless you qualify, don’t use them. It really is that simple.

I know that building regs require wheelchair accessible toilets, but are there specific regulations about providing dedicated disabled toilets?

I can think of at least one local building that only has an accessible toilet, so it's fulfilling it's obligations re: accessibility, but obviously everyone uses it.

the suggestion that they [trans people] should use the disabled toilet has come from GC people

It really hasn't.

It's come from people who aren't great thinkers or TRAs.

GC people already know that trans people shouldn't use spaces not intended for them.

Thats what I think too. I went looking for why design has changed and had no idea this is what I would find. I know a charity talked about door gaps as well as myself but there was nothing in the consultation analysis. Right from the beginning of Document T, Stonewall had set a campaign for toilets in the consultation (which is fine) but the government had 1000s of people writing in which skewed the emphasis in the first place. The government did try and look at protected characteristic of disability by commissioning this private company. There is not any detailed analysis that looked at ‘women’ separately which I believe should also have been done.

I have also found in the small print of toilet design by the Department of Education design briefs asking about whether schools are having unisex toilets or single sex toilets. And, in the last few years, a private toilet ‘identified as gender neutral’ on each floor. A secondary school also has to justify their decisions if they want door gaps and not have the standard tiny 5mm for privacy. There will be around 10 children will epilepsy, several more with diabetes, and several more with other health conditions in an average secondary school. Plus the fact any child can have a medical emergency. The Department do not hold risk assessments for these designs, saying they are designed for privacy. Safety is never mentioned in the toilet design section. I have also found how many rapes are reported inside school premises which shocked me. Frustratingly the location of these has never been investigated but store cupboard, disabled toilet and toilet come up in searches.

I want safe toilets for everyone. What all unisex and ‘gender neutral’ designs do is increase privacy too much in a mixed sex area which results in it not being safe for the most vulnerable. We need as few unisex toilets as possible.

Chris You do know there won't be data on that, don't you? What a daft question.

Someone using the accessible loo for reasons other than genuine need have happened to at least two people on this thread, so I guess you could extrapolate from the number of posters, but it would be very inaccurate.

Edit - and more since I posted

I'm not disabled but a couple of my friends are. The problems they've encountered with accessing designated disabled toilets have been:
People using them to take drugs
They also are the only toilet wih baby changing
People using them to sleep in
They are the default toilet when the women's/men's is out of order
Nobody has the key
Young people are using them as a changing room.

As I asked- how often does this happen exactly?

Not once and for all, no, it's not going to lie down with a stake through its heart: but you can at least look at the EHRC consultation on the new guidelines and comment where they've proposed to use it as an example.

It's a great shame that there hasn't been more campaigning for "fourth spaces" many years earlier instead of providers just saying "oh go on then use the women's if you like" to everyone or "mix everyone together and who cares" and failing to realise they were neither satisfactory nor legal.

Absolutely this.

Hence the non stop flailing around from one ridiculous line of argument to another.

Normally a problem is discussed and a solution emerges from the theories and ideas.

This is a desired end point 'solution' with a lot of activists frantically trying to find a convincing enough theory to make it happen. They've spent over a decade on it without success.

First It was androgynous looking women would be discriminated against - that was debunked

Then it was women that identified as men would face discrimination - that was debunked

Now it’s the idea that trans identifying people are being forced to use facilities designated for the use of disabled people…

What next can TRA’s claim I wonder 🤔

This is not about concern for disabled users. This is about men objecting because they have been told they cannot use the women’s. This is TRAs spinning false concern for disability as a reason to use women. Men, who have been invading spaces they are not entitled to suddenly decide it would be terrible to invade another space because it isn’t the one they want.

Yes to this.

I have no time for posters who come on a feminist board and call a successful woman an entitled, vacuous, talent-free zone just because they disagree with her politically. No one who succeeds in their profession as much as she has can be considered vacuous or talent-free. I loath Nicola Sturgeon but she was a talented politician. And what do you mean by ‘not on our side’? What do you think is ‘our side’? In terms of disability it is Labour who are proposing cuts to PIP, and removal of EHCPs from most children currently entitled to them. Do I disagree with Kemi on things? Absolutely, but the conservatives are in opposition facing a Labour Party with a huge majority who are failing to implement the SC ruling so it is the Labour Party you should be holding to account.

I was out at a popular attraction on Thursday. I am a wheelchair user. Next to the block of men's and women's toilets there was one disabled toilet. The sign said 'disabled and gender neutral toilet'. A lady saw the sign as I was wheeling over to the toilet and said 'gender neutral toilet, that's hilarious, I'm going in there' and dashed in ahead of me. Disabled toilets are already being relabelled and people that should be using standard cubicles are using them.

How is relating the fact that a person tried on a dress on the disabled loos 'demonizing trans people'?

And yet there was a thread on this site recently where multiple people said that trans people should use the disabled toilets and pointed out that they"weren't disabled toilets anymore" because so many of them had been converted to baby change facilities. So clearly a lot of people do disagree.

Re the Guardian article on this yesterday ( interesting timing)
I gave up reading it because it was the usual dishonest bollocks.