Are toilets still allowed to be cleaned by members of the opposite sex?

Even if the supreme court ruling did mean that men could no longer clean womens toilets then that would be a small price to pay for keeping men out of womens prisons, rape therapy groups, sports etc etc

The supreme court ruling is about more than toilets..

But that many men do indeed assault women while pretending to be female.
Trans identifying males are just as likely as regularly dressed males to commit violent crime against women

I worried aloud about this the other day, because Circumferences is wrong - "man" in the EA clearly does include male babies, it was clarified in the Supreme Court hearings that the purpose of the "any age" definition in the EA is to include children. My concern was that although to us it's common sense that nobody objects to other-sex small children in a single-sex toilet, there are people who think it's common sense that nobody objects to trans people there, so that argument doesn't solve the issue. However, I think the answer to my worry is what NextRinny said about it not strictly being the space, but the service, that is single-sex. I think the male baby isn't the service user. The service user is his mother, and the service provided is toilet facilities for adults and their small children who need to be accompanied.

Any lawyers here who can comment, or anyone seen comment by any of the knowledgeable lawyers?

I have a part time cleaning job just for extra cash and to be honest I hate being put in the section where I have to clean the mens toilet.
I’m told by management to just knock and shout out to make sure there’s no one in there but seeing as I been flashed at 4 times throughout my life I do say a little prayer every time that I’m not going to be faced with a weirdo with his knob out.
My manager is a misogynistic twat who wouldn’t get get it.
I don’t know if other cleaners feel this way or it’s just my life experiences that make me uncomfortable with it though.

The point is that if a man wants to assault a woman they won’t bother disguising themselves as a woman they’ll just do it. There’s so many cases where a man has simply gone into the ladies toilets (not dressed as anything) and raped someone. If they’re willing to commit a crime they’re not going to care about going into the ‘wrong’ toilet.
and honestly, I would probably feel much more confused/uncomfortable if a trans man came into the ladies toilets than a trans woman (who probably just looks like a woman).

For clarity, If a trans identifying male cleaner with lipstick and a skirt was cleaning the loos, I wouldn't have an issue with it, so long as he put the sign up to warn women.
I've no issues with trans identifying males when they aren't barging into women only spaces.

What is your point?
You feel women should be nervous that people dressed cleaners will attack them, even though they've put a sign outside the door, warning women they're there?
How ridiculous are you?
Let go of the straws

I was just going to ask this.

No one has ever said that opposite sex cleaners have a "right" to use those toilets. They clean them with a sign saying they are there so users will know. Everyone knows their sex.

It's no differernt than a male plumber coming n to repair the ladies loo.

Often they will leave if someone really needs to come in and use the toilet before they are done.

It's nothing to do with the SC ruling.

Ok. Who sent up the batshit signal??? Own up!!!

Yep. Some men just don't think of the optics when they suggest little boys should use men's toilets unaccompanied.

People listening to the radio and hearing that will picture the scene and shudder.

They really do our work for us sometimes.

😆I know you're joking, but I'm actually surprised someone on this thread hasn't already said "but what if a man disguised himself as a 6 year old to enter toilets and assault women".
I mean, that's the level of critical thinking apparent in some posters here!

Or maybe the men who think they're women, but can't now get into our spaces, will go online and buy themselves a uniform and a bucket and perv at women that way. I dare say they haven't done it because they didn't need to/ hadn't thought of it.

To be fair it is uncommon men pretend to be cleaners. There one case I know. More common is female cleaners being attacked by men. I think it can be a vulnerable job.

If you are asking a genuine question as opposed to using the male cleaner as a gotcha, why not respond to this helpful analysis?

I wouldn’t have an issue with it, it’s not practical to hire two people to clean loos. Having been a toilet cleaner myself, you tend to only be in there for five minutes per hour with a proper clean at end of day.

There’s a difference in having a mixed sex loo and having cleaners of either sex. I’ve worked in a care home where various residents requested same sex care. No one cared which sex the cleaners were.

We don't get a sign anymore, though. Just a permanent one on the door warning that there MIGHT be an opposite sex staff member in there. At any time.

The SC ruling was to determine if people could could legally change their sex in regard to which single sex service they are permitted to access. It concluded they could not. It didn't rule on whether you can legally have opposite sex staff members servicing a facility or whether prepubescent children are banned from single sex spaces (because those weren't the challenges FWS brought).

The 'of any age' reference actually re-enforces that cut off for children in the wrong sex facilities is expected to come well before their legal adulthood. Had they said men means males over 18 years old then 17 year olds would be legally able to access wrong sex facilities and everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that that isn't the case.

I agree. I've never had a problem with a temporary sign on the women's toilets letting everyone know that there is a male cleaner in there RIGHT NOW doing his job. That used to give anybody who couldn't enter with a male in the room (for whatever reason) the chance to potentially go and find a different toilet to use. One without any males in the room whatsoever.

But these days, all of the signs seem to be permanent. A permanent sign on the door of the female and the male toilets letting customers know that toilets may be cleaned by people of the opposite sex (or sometimes, may be cleaned by people of 'all genders').

I'd personally like to see the removal of these, and a return to temporary signage when staff of the opposite sex are in the room. Then it's clear.

(And no, I don't think any of this is remotely relevant to small children entering the opposite sex toilet with their opposite sex parent!)

Women get assaulted by men all the time it very rarely makes it to court, let alone the news.

Then they'd be just as much of a perverted , sad weirdo as the men who put on dresses in order to wank in cubicles of women's toilets.

Male cleaners put a sign outside the door to say 'male cleaner in toilet'. The women can make their OWN CHOICE about whether to go in there.

The TW does not put a sign outside the door when entering the women's toilet. The women have no choice in the matter.

Do you understand it now?

Ooh I know, what if a man identified as a cleaner? Or a 6 year old?

Just reposting this post from @HermioneWeasley (my repost above got deleted due to my added comment, so I am not commenting this time!):

'This is such an abusive male tactic - if you don’t let adult male cross dressers in your paces we’re going to make it hard for you to take your toddler son to the loo
how dare you, how dare middle aged men snivel behind baby boys'.

Yet men who pretend to be women do assault women.
Not too many stories of cleaner identifying males harassing and assaulting women, but maybe you'll direct me to some reports.

And, if the cleaner is male, but cleaning a female toilet , he would go into the men's toilets to pee. He is not getting his penis out in the ladies loo, he is cleaning because that's his job.