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

I for one have brought this up several times and have never advocated that TIM’s should use disabled toilets, quite the opposite in fact. I think your anger is somewhat misdirected, ‘GC’ women as you call us are not the problem.

Google ‘Girl assault disabled toilet.’ These are just the ones that are reported. Disabled toilets are mixed sexed private cubicles.

All mixed sex/unisex/gender-neutral toilet cubicle and rooms designs are private. We are in danger of sleep walking into loads more opportunities for VAWG and boys. Can you imagine where some of these extra unisex toilets will be retrofitted?

Some building regs for the universal (unisex) design in Document T (2024):
A washbasin, mirror and hand-drying facilities within the cubicle
A full-height door and full-height floor-to-ceiling partitions
Be fitted with light action privacy bolts operable with a closed fist
Self-closer on door, if a fire door
Be capable of being opened from the outside if a person has collapsed against it while inside the toilet room or cubicle.
If the door is inward opening, have an emergency release mechanism so that the door is capable of being opened outward, from the outside, in case of emergency, such as when a person has collapsed while inside the toilet room or cubicle.
Adequately resist the passage of sound in toilet rooms.

————————

It’s interesting to know the government are aware how often people collapse in a cubicle. But how would you know someone has collapsed against the full height door? The design is lockable but arguably not secure as the tricks to open the door outwards will get known as its standardised.

In a unisex toilet you won’t know if anyone is outside your door. If you collapse no one will see you and no one will hear you well. However, a man will be able to let himself in at any point. If he does let himself in, or you get forced in, no one will know there are multiple people in the cubicle.

- have you actually read the posts on this thread? which are supportive

Yes I have. I was responding to the post that I quoted.

I read an article from a disability association that claimed 50pc of trans people had a disability so would be using them anyway? Seems weirdly high?

In some cases a separate self contained toilet is preferable for privacy and dignity - there are some things you don't want to be dealing with in a cubicle in communal toilets

Not all disabled people believe that (I don't)

I think there needs to be an overall shift in making MORE places accessible to disabled people not having a minority of additional places accessible.

In my work place ALL toilets are accessible so someone who is disabled (or older or has a baby/young child ) can use the nearest, most convenient facility.

Disabled toilets came about because people felt uncomfortable seeing & using accessible facilities & equipment so they were kept separate to avoid offending 'normal' able bodied people .

If I was trans and knew my appearance would make women uncomfortable i would use the disabled toilets until another solution was found

A solution already exists that doesn't involve invading a facility that's not intended for you

We must have an excess of disabled toilets in my neck of the woods because I have never seen one in use. I used to use them frequently when I was a young mum when my child needed a toilet quickly, or I needed a cubicle big enough to bring the pushchair in with me. They were always empty. If I was trans and knew my appearance would make women uncomfortable i would use the disabled toilets until another solution was found

If there is a queue and a disabled person is not waiting to use it I always use the disabled loo and I will continue to do so. I never try on clothes in the loo or faff with my makeup,. Public loos are often gross and I am in and out in no time.

I've skim read the article, but one aspect that seemed prominent to me was that how everybody else behaved was the problem.

Never that those who identify as trans should just make the effort to comply.

Its always everybody else's fault.

Never their own for having insisted that their set of beliefs should be adopted or at least complied with by everybody else.

.
The head of the EHRC, Kishwer Falkner, said trans people should themselves campaign for “third spaces”.

Well that's not going to happen because partly if not mainly that would mean conceding that they cant and aren't accepted as the sex they identify as.

It is in the interests of their beliefs not to find a solution.

But to make society accept their belief system.

It's not ableist to cricise or disagree with someone with a disability.

It's not the women on FWR who need instructing on this issue and it's not up to us to come up with solutions for where trans people go to the toilet. We don't need lecturing on what we should or shouldn't be doing about it.

@MarieDeGournay it’s like a ‘new script’ is emerging (and of course the Guardian is happy to publicise it).

edited to add apostrophe

It really is weird!
“I can only use the wheelchair accessible toilets now, but I’ve been challenged numerous times over the years in the women’s toilets, sometimes aggressively, because I’m non gender-conforming.”
What is the relevance of this? So women have aggressively challenged you in the past and they may aggressively challenge transwomen who, unlike you, have no right to be in the women's toilets anyway - so??

She worries that, with most businesses and services not having funds to build extra toilet provision, the result will be less provision. “If you can be sued because you’ve mistakenly let in a transgender man to the gents, or you’ve mistakenly challenged somebody, you can’t get insurance so you just won’t provide toilets. That will hit disabled people even harder”.

Transgender men are supposed to go to the 'gents', so ..?
And where does it say that you can be sued for mistakenly challenging someone?

Public buildings have to have toilets, and the ones that aren't the disabled toilets have to be sex-segregated, unisex ones may also be provided, but I don't believe it would be legal for businesses and services can just say 'a plague on both your cubicles' and just decide not to bother with any toilets at all, thereby
'hitting disabled people even harder'.

It seems to be an exercise in lots of scolding about so-called 'policing bathrooms' (sic, in the case case of Inclusion London) so they are only used by the people they are designated for.

But presumably all the people quoted would agree that only disabled people should use the toilets designated for disabled people, and that should be enforced by trust - trusting that men will not use the women's toilet, women will not use the men's toilet, and able-bodied people will not used the disabled toilet.
'Policing' should not be necessary.

GCornotGCthatisthequestion - have you actually read the posts on this thread? which are supportive of the OP? It doesn't look like it!

Just to clarify, I think there should be more unisex toilets in addition to existing single sex provision, not instead of.

Ablism is alive and well on mumsnet I see!

I have seen many suggestions that trans people use the accessible toilets, with no regard for wheelchair users and others that have no choice but to use them.

I agree with you op.
It's not up to disabled people to move over and make room for transpeople.

I think as other have suggested without intentionally saying TW should use toilets that are specifically for people with disabilities there are vague references to alternative facilities.

And if fact I think in the Interim Guidelines from the EHRC they should have made it clear whether in a workplace or a public building, that just turning the facilities for disabled people into a "gender neutral" one is not acceptable. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

I haven't started on completing the consultation currently open for comments, but was (and still am) intending to say they need to make that clear. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-services-public-functions-and-associations

And even if some women have been not as conscious as they could have been, I do think that it is being weaponised in the public mainstream discussion by TRAs who are trying to claim the higher moral ground by saying that of course they would never make use of disabled toilets.

All of this is trying to imply there is an insurmountable problem created by horrible women, rather than putting the pressure on the providers of toilets to get on and make the adjustments to provide single sex facilities and gender neutral ones, in addition to disabled toilets.

I completely agree. It was incredibly annoying to see Maya Forstarter supporting this on Twitter a few years ago, and quite a lot of women agreeing with her. There was the usual “but surely it’s fine to use it if a disabled person isn’t using it”, and “I’ve hardly ever seen anyone use them” and they then ignored those of us explaining why this is an immensely stupid argument.

I disagree. They are abused by men who take girls and boys into them. And push women into them too. Thats why assaults take place in disabled toilets in stations and schools.

The consultation says children aged 10 and below could go with a parent. I think a mix sex disabled toilet should not be enclosed. Why should a girl and man have more privacy than a girl and a woman?

You are right, OP, and I totally agree with you. It's true that, every now and then, someone on this board proposes to extend the use of disable toilets as unisex ones, but most of the timesthere are immediately posters suggesting that disabled toilets need to be available to disabled users.

Yes agree OP - disabled toilets should not be used as a ‘scooping everyone else up’. There are so many challenges disabled people have to negotiate that make it harder to get out and to work. The sheer effort it takes to overcome obstacles can mean people stay at home.

There are millions of people with heart conditions, diabetes and epilepsy in this country. I rarely get push back about my campaign for safe toilets, but it has been suggested that mobile people with any long term health condition should use the disabled toilets which is ridiculous. They may very rarely have seizures or hypos but, like anyone having a medical emergency, need to be able to be seen and heard.

Ideally, there should be single sex toilets (with door gaps), ambulant single sex toilets (with doors gaps) and single sex disabled toilet (with door gaps). Disabled people are already at a disadvantage of having to have a private, mixed sex toilet.

In places where there is not enough room for all the above, then you have to start compromising with safety.

There’s a lovely little charity that help with accessible toilets and locations: www.euansguide.com/campaigns/safer-toilets/

I think there should be more unisex fully enclosed toilets. This will help people who might need a carer but don't need a wheelchair accessible toilet, people who don't want to use the toilets for their sex and dads who want to take their daughters to the toilets but would rather not take them into the men's.

This weirdness was in The Guardian today

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/24/disabled-campaigners-trans-people-toilet-segregation

OP, the vast majority of the posts have been 100% supportive of you. Nobody here said able-bodied trans people should use the disabled toilets.
A couple of people expressed slightly tangential points - e.g. that perhaps your words would have more impact elsewhere, as we agree with you already, and that some trans people have invisible disabilties.
That's two posters.
The rest of us have backed you completely.
Why are you focusing on the two who made slightly different points? What about all the supportive posts?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5332093-maya-forstater-at-the-stonewall-conference

Discussed here

I think Maya Forstater suggested it.

Will try to find link.