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

Yes as I said I think the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous and I'm sure a male cleaner would make themselves known and leave if asked. Someone was saying that the points that the poster raised had never been presented as scenarios on here and I just said that I had actually seen similar scenarios pointed out on here a few times. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that women could have blood on them, be undressed, run to the toilets when feeling ill or perhaps scared or any number of things. It's often pointed out that the ladies can be a haven for women. And with that I think I'll stop reading this thread because the twists and turns are doing my head in!!

And you have seen “a woman running into a bathroom to escape a man and therefore shouldn’t see a man in the bathroom” as a scenario. Not a woman in say, a night club or pub, walking into a toilet to avoid a particular man who is bothering them?

There is quite a difference in urgency and a difference in needs.

And yes, women DO have blood on them and are sometimes half undressed. What is the significance of these situations to having a male cleaner enter? I would expect a male cleaner would announce they are about to enter, wouldn't you think? And that would give a woman or girl time to prepare?

Do you also think that if a woman entered a toilet and found a male cleaner, she could reasonably ask that cleaner to wait outside if needed?

What?

The whole thread is peculiar!! Not saying any person in particular has said those things, just saying I have seen it given as reasons men shouldn't be in the loos. I don't get this whole palaver about male cleaners as has been pointed out many times there are warning signs put up and some people can't be picky about what job they do, you basically have to do what your manager tells you

So, you are WhatNextCatsAsDoctors?

But what if I personally didn’t say those things? The expectation seems to be that nonetheless I (or others) should be defending that view. It’s all a bit peculiar tbh. And doesn’t persuade me that men should piss anywhere other than the gents

I have seen similar scenarios posted on here, plus women with blood on them, half undressed etc as reasons why men shouldn't be in the ladies, quite often although I'm not going to go searching for them to prove a point . But basically saying it's about privacy and decency etc due to these things and that women often run to loos to escape certain situations. So there doesn't seem much point in people now saying that no one has ever said those things. Having said that I think this whole thread is ridiculous and I can't believe it's still going!!

I would imagine beavers ( the animal for the avoidance of double entendres) taste revolting. I’m imagining gamey, fishy lamb.

I remember reading that Henry VIII got lamb and chicken into the fish category too, for fasting day purposes.
So, inspiration there for any more complete overreaching of reality.
People ate beavers? 😥

edited for typo

It's almost like you've never been amongst grown-ups, if you don't mind me saying.

You may not realise this, but women walk around constantly aware of risk. And toilets are just one of those places. We can't eliminate it.

The narrative you appear to be enjoying is that unless women can use the newly confirmed law to exclude all men, it's not worth the paper it's written on. Followed up by a bit of ner, ner, ner, ner, ner.

Several women, including me, have said yes, in an ideal world women only cleaners would be great. But we don't live in an ideal world.

So unfortunately some women will absolutely exclude themselves from public toilets altogether.

But waaay more will exclude themselves if we allow men who, by their very entrance, are a red flag.

it's about risk mitigation. Not risk elimination. In other words, safeguarding.

Please link to a post that describes doing this so we can understand why you are making this point. I have only been on MN for 6 or 7 years and I don't recall seeing the examples as you describe them. I am happy to read what you are referring to though.

Oh please, I absolutely do have an awareness of the constant situational awareness that is involved in being a woman.

You’re now retelling the story and changing the scenario to fit your narrative and bend over backwards to explain why something that applies to trans women wouldn’t apply to male cleaners.

The scenario of “a woman running into a bathroom to escape a man and therefore shouldn’t see a man in the bathroom” is a story that has been told on here for years. You have now just added in the “if he follows you in you can now complain about it and he can’t Self-ID out of it” as the focus to suit what you’re now saying.

You may not run into bathrooms to escape men- great- but that’s not what many others on here seem to think.

🙄
Recent history is not that long ago and I'm not going to dig it up (out of respect) .

If you don't know how being afraid of anyone having a lanyard and looking authoritative is the same as being afraid some might be rogue officers and ex-officers then that's your own problem.

Yes ideally we'd have the correct cleaners in the right sex toilets but needing workable solutions shouldn't move society to the conclusion that men have every right to walk into the women's whenever they feel like a spinny skirt or if they castrate themselves.

If people want to campaign for same sex toilet cleaners, i wouldn't stand in their way.

I think we should think ahead and see how it could work in practice. What are business more likely to do - schedule both male and female cleaners everyday, or have every toilet unisex and avoid the problem?

We know the problems with unisex spaces, bothfor saftey and for reduced number of actual toilets. So it that going to be a win for women, or the men who want to destroy anything for women if they cant use it?

If male cleaners are acting like arses and not signalling their presence or not waiting for women to leave before entering, we need to let them and their employers know its unacceptable behaviour. Isnt that easier?

It's not common sense that you're employing, it's magical thinking. If a cup is used for soup it doesn't become a bowl. If you wear your knickers on your head they don't become a hat.

As I'm sure you know, trans people who pass (almost entirely 'transmen' in this country) will use the facilities that they've always done.

Cross-dressing has always been around - but it's only become a youth subculture recently. And it's only recently that anyone has tried to assert that transwomen are women. No one has ever really believed that and no one does now, including trans-identified men.

Have fun with your gender appearance and identity, if you want - but don't expect everyone else to play along.

The men I have seen in women's loos usually wear a shirt and dark trousers and have a lanyard with ID. Anyone could fake this, it's not hard, unlike a police uniform which would require some effort to find even on the internet.

Well, common sense suggests that women clean women's loos and men clean men's loos, as this removes the problem of 'fake' cleaners mainly in the women's loos.
That police uniforms are easily faked (really?) does not mean that the police should not wear uniforms - and they usually have other ID that confirms what the uniform says e.g. a unique number on the shoulder of their jacket/shirt - nor that we should dispense with ID for other jobs. False coupling.

Id have thought toilet cleaners wear some sort of uniform? Its not as if people would be delighted to clean toilets then pop to the supermarket on the way home wearing the same clothes.

This is the equivalent of getting rid of police uniforms altogether because they are easily faked.

To me this is the epitome of how this ideology took hold.
The world is not ideal.
Instead of dealing with the nuance of the solutions we've been able to find within time, space and budget available, we put into question common sense itself and end up with 2+2=6 and continue with this as the foundation for the new world logic.

Ideally men would not clean women's loos but we just might have a work force problem so lanyards, DBS and work and social contracts are required.

Now if we can propose a new solution to make the ideal possible, go for it. In the mean time, we need to have a firm grip on reality. And common sense.

Tbh, I don't give a toss for transwomen's hurt feelings, need for validation etc. It is not my problem, maintaining single-sex women's spaces is my problem.

I would hope it would stop this. Any man in a single-sex female space means any man can enter it. I had this conversation with a cleaner - he said his lanyard ID'd him and I pointed out anyone can wear a lanyard and apart from having one he was wearing nothing that identified him as an employee - and with the manager of a restaurant. Neither took on board the danger this causes.
Also, women cleaning men's loos is degrading for the women and embarrassing for the men. I don't like it and I think opposite sex cleaners should stop being used.

Tedious. It's a very male thought to think women worried about men in toilets means women see toilets as a sanctuary to run into instead of as a place to avoid having to run out of because of men.
Just tedious.

Bla bla bla my authentic lived experience bla bla. Look at my theory of your potential lived experience bla bla.

Tedious.

Sorry just to add to my previous post. I think ultimately it boils down to whether you think the comfort and feelings of gender non conforming men is worth adding this extra layer of risk for women. And I do think that's a fair argument to have. But to have that argument you have to acknowledge the fact of the matter which is that women do lose out on some of their protections because of this.

I also think it is on trans people and their allies to be honest about the fact that this DOES happen. It was absolutely disgusting to see on trans Reddit the reaction to Karen Danson (one of the Darlington nurses) calling out the abusive behaviour of "Rose". She was accused of "weaponising her trauma" being a bigot, transphobic and other awful accusations. There was not even a hint of "hmm, maybe this is a case of a sexual predator abusing the system". That is an enormous problem and, imo, one of the key reasons why we cannot give even a millimeter in this "debate".

Small children of the opposite sex don't count. It's completely normal for mums to take little boys into the women's toilets and for dads to take little girls into the men's toilet. It's adults that shouldn't be in the other one.

Wow! 18 pages about male cleaners in toilets.

I would prefer if cleaners in female spaces were women but I don't think male cleaners present the same problem that gender non conforming men do. A male cleaner is not the start of a slippery slope. Like say you have a guy who is voyeuristic or a flasher...

He learns that male cleaners sometimes clean female facilities. He decides to get hired as a cleaner and proceeds to go into the women's facilities and expose his penis or "accidentally" look at women changing or peeing. He will get reported (either to his employer or the police) and hopefully eventually fired and/or arrested. Everyone will agree that it was wrong for him to expose his penis or look at women. Women will not feel afraid for their reputation mentioning to the building management that the cleaner behaved inapporpriately. No ambiguity there (thanks to Laura Bates).

But say instead he learns that "trans women" are welcome in female facilities. He goes along to a toilet or changing room and exposes his penis or looks at women getting changed. Maybe eventually he gets reported to the police or building management. And he says "no. She's a lying, transohobic bigot. I was just getting changed/fell over/forgot to do up my trousers before leaving the loo. We're all women here." Now the woman who has been assaulted is an aggressor and our common perv is a stunning and brave victim of transphobia.

The first scenario is something that men undoubtedly do. I'm not sure about cleaners but carers, teachers, medical professionals, priests. If men see an opportunity, they will arrange their lives around having access to the target of their abuse. Everybody knows that this happens and we have safeguarding procedures in place to try and mitigate the risk. Of course many men manage to slip through but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The second scenario is a total denial of one of the most basic and unquestionable facts of life - that men sexually abuse women.