My employer has just removed single sexed toilets to be more inclusive!

So that's two misogynistic posts implying women somehow "brought it on themselves" by clarifying their rights.

Abuser's language.

Own. Your. Victory.

What law did they change?

Name it.

We had this at work. We put a flouncy wicker basket in one loo stuffed full of sanitary products with a big sign decorated with hearts “if in need help yourself” and voila. Men use the other loos 🤣🤣🤣

You have not understood the guidance, or discrimination law.

Nor has OP's employer, unfortunately.

What utter BS. Grow up with making up false claims about trans people.

Sorry, but it appears your employer is attempting to follow the law following the lawfare by GC activists. Realistically, despite the claims above, these toilets appear legal. Posters who post about the EHRC guidance should read that this is a workplace so doesn’t apply, and even then it makes clear that such provision is legal. Frankly, you should be directing your complaint at For Women Scotland, who changed the law by undemocratic means, and the consequence of a legal claim that doesn’t fully consider all the consequences unlike a careful statutory process.

Some of the males who want to be in women's toilets raid the san pro bins for used san pro to...use themselves for umm... gender euphoria purposes. So I wouldn't advise leaving it where it can be accessed by males with that interest.

Your point that the 'The trans community represents a tiny, tiny proportion of the population' is very true.

Since that is the case, do you ever wonder why on earth such a tiny, tiny proportion of the population demands that the vast majority of the population accept changes in the law, medicine, education, the English language, the media, etc. etc.?

And on the specific subject of toilets, do you ever wonder why a tiny, tiny proportion of the population, who are perfectly capable of using the toilets designated for their sex, are very aggressively demanding that special toilets should be added to the existing women's/men's/disabled people's provision, regardless of the cost and disruption?

Why shouldn't that tiny, tiny proportion of the population just go about their business, not hurting anyone, by respecting single-sex spaces and using the toilets designated for their sex?

If there is scare-mongering going on, it's not working on me - I am not particularly scared of a transwoman using a women's toilet, no more than I would be of any other kind of man using the women's toilet.

I just believe in the principle of respecting other people's spaces; any man, trans or not, who uses the women's toilet should not be there, on principle.

They don't have to frighten anyone or attack anyone to be in the wrong - by failing to respect a single-sex-designated women's toilet, they have removed themselves from the category of 'people just trying to go about their business, not hurting anyone' .

They have revealed themselves instead as people who stubbornly insist on going where they know they don't belong [cf the UKSC ruling, for the avoidance of doubt] and where they know they are not wanted.

That's just wrong on principle, scary or not.

Flush tampons the first blockage may change their mind or you could wrap them and put them in a bin that people can see because surely they don't expect you to take them home right?

Time to go public I reckon. Or, is this an LA? Contact SEEN in Local Authorities?

Well others may feel differently. More importantly, that’s not the actual choice.

The reality is that single sex toilets with door gaps are actually way safer in terms of sexual assault as well as in the case of serious medical events. An attacker can push you into a single sex occupancy facility with full height doors, lock you in with him and nobody can hear what’s going on. The door gaps in single sex facilities mean the attack would be seen and heard by others and help can be had.

The problem with Dolatowski is that people were under the impression that, as a man, he was entitled to be in the women’s loo if only he said the magic words ‘I’m trans’. And everyone was too scared to raise an objection in case they were accused of bigotry or some dozy copper slapped them with a non-crime hate incident record. Now, everyone is clear that no male is meant to be in the female facilities, no matter how hurt his feelings if he’s told to leave. So males will now once again stick out like a sore thumb and be seen as a potential threat, rather than a ‘poor ickle most vulnerable of all’, whose comfort should be prioritised higher than that of actual female, whose safety and dignity should be ignored.

That doesn’t make sense. The unisex toilet is private and resists sound. The occupant can’t see out to warn them someone’s near the cubicle. People outside the cubicle can see and hear how many people are in the cubicle by how many feet there are. The latter point actually is a good incentive for something not to happen in the first place. Perpetrators don’t like witnesses.

Or, and this is a bit of an extreme suggestion so bear with me - we could just have single sex toilets so we could be both safe from the likes of Dolatowski and safer if we fall ill and need rescuing?

Oh wait no that might make some men sad, so we can't have that. Better to risk women's safety then mens feelings.

Rather have a heart attack in a ooo than be raped by a dolatowski.

Tablets. It’s just colouring in corn flour that is released in water.

No it applies to the environment that is created by the employer. Pupils are in that environment. Who the employer is, depends on the type of school.

Edit: I got that schools have to abide by the 1974 regs directly from the DfE.

The Health and Safety at Work Act (1974).

Surely this applies to teachers and school staff rather than pupils though?

I'd imagine separate legislation covers arrangements for pupils...

It's not just about safety, if by that you mean the risk of sexual assault. It is about dignity and privacy and feeling safevtoo.

It’s in relation to The Health and Safety at Work Act (1974). A lot of toilet legislation doesn’t apply to schools but this one still does. It discusses a duty to safeguard and provide a safe environment and adequate facilities.

A lot of my research is from schools as they’re the canaries in terms of new loo designs.

I would have thought it self evident that dozens of men using a loo (anonymously) are more likely to lead to this than one (traceable) cleaner or a man taking a chance of sneaking into the ladies.

To me your post has tones of “why bother to try to safeguard women”. Was this your intention?

"I am discussing what employers (including schools) should be doing.
For example secondary schools in England have to justify to the DfE why they are not having the new standard full height doors, even in single sex toilets. This makes no sense when there’s around 9 children with epilepsy and several more with diabetes in each school. There’s not a safe toilet for them"

Bit strange to be talking about schools as employers in the context of children though....

I am discussing what employers (including schools) should be doing.
For example secondary schools in England have to justify to the DfE why they are not having the new standard full height doors, even in single sex toilets. This makes no sense when there’s around 9 children with epilepsy and several more with diabetes in each school. There’s not a safe toilet for them.

There’s also the question in the school design brief which asks whether your school toilets are going to be unisex or single sex. So that’s why some schools justify having all unisex toilets.

Design guidelines are all over the place. Document T attempts to sort this out from 2024. Schools are under different rules but are still employers.

But they were always single sex self contained units. There was never an option for raised cubicle type doors.

there are group toilets on different floors so in a work scenario a person with epilepsy would be placed on that floor not this one as it’s not accessible