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

I think that the mere act of a trans identifying men using a women's toilet is an act of harassment. Therefore, to answer your question, all trans people who would use the wrong sex toilet are acting "so inappropriately". The trans identifying men who are not willing to harass women to satisfy their own needs are the ones who use the men's toilets.

What’s your source for the majority being fetishists and autogynophiles? Please give me peer reviewed research and reliable statistics for that bold claim.

A female cleaner was waiting outside the male toilets for them to become free, in my office today

I find it to be an interesting exercise because it shows the beliefs on here that are being held about trans people being perverts (not that people on here are really hiding those beliefs any more).

You appear to be of the opinion that trans identifying men are unwilling / or incapable of following the social convention, that men do not use female only spaces without consent, thus implying that these men are willing to sexually harass women to satisfy their own needs. Do you really believe that all trans people would act so inappropriately?

Because when you see the ‘male cleaner present’ sign you know there’s a male cleaner there and can wait till they’ve finished. Allowing men to USE female loos means I don’t get informed about the presence of a male.

I have no idea how, but you are ALWAYS on here whenever I come on, and you always get a kick out of responding to my points without saying anything of value. You seem to enjoy mocking my points rather than responding to them. I don’t enjoy engaging with you because it’s never in good faith so I won’t again, but I just want to let you know that I see you always replying to me.

I expect most women to feel differently about a six foot man with a beard in overalls with a mop and bucket who's cleaning the floor compared to a six foot man with a beard in a dress coming out of a cubicle.

The trans umbrella is very broad; the minority are transsexuals and the majority are fetishists and autogynephiles Surely you cannot be unaware of this.

I mean I know you’re here to shore up your own beliefs rather than engage in good faith in any way, but your inability to understand the concept of informed consent actually makes me embarrassed for you. At this point I hope it IS an act, otherwise you really shouldn’t be out and about by yourself.

FFS, we’re not talking Lady Macbeth levels of gore. But even a small amount of blood on your hands will make the water and sink red. I presume most women are like me and try to be discreet and wait until other toilet users have left the sink area.

And as for the partially undressed thing - you’ve never changed in the works loos before going out for the evening? Or had to take off your top and clean it because it’s had something spilled on it? Or got caught in a heavy rain storm and stood under the dryer trying to make yourself respectable? I have done all these things at some point, and seen others doing similar.

‘I have some very strong preconceived ideas and will performatively misunderstand any posts that challenge my ideas. Did I mention that you’re all bigots?’

Regardless of the reasons why they are there, would the impact not be the same? Would a woman not be shocked by a male body, or made to feel uncomfortable if she was in any state of undress when leaving a cubicle?

I'm sure they'll cope.

Transwomen are men, and should always have used men's facilities.

A refuge where all case workers are women is likely to employ only women as cleaners, particularly those who clean the toilets. That seems reasonable to me.

Many women probably would prefer a female cleaner in women's toilets. I put forward as evidence for this the existence of the "this bathroom is being cleaned by a male cleaner" sign.

A significant difference between a male toilet cleaner in a women's toilet and a male toilet user in a women's toilet is that the latter has already overridden women's boundaries by entering, indicating he's part of the minority of men who don't care about women comfort or dignity. That's much more concerning to a woman than a male cleaner who obviously hasn't entered by his own choice but is required to by his employer to carry out his duties (and probably doesn't want to be there a second longer than he needs to be to do his job).

I don't see a cause for confusion.

So explain to me why all the reasons that everyone gives on here as to why trans women shouldn’t be in women’s spaces (seeing them in a vulnerable state, intimidation by male bodies, shock and surprise) don’t also apply to male cleaners?

You seem to think I’m arguing that it’s currently not allowed and that I don’t understand that. I do, but I’m explaining that by the logic on here it SHOULDN’T be.

I don’t care about trans women in toilets, but I’m just pointing out the cognitive dissonance. If you are going to disrupt the lives of so many trans people, at least be consistent!

What’s so difficult to understand? Toilets are for the USE of one sex. The cleaner isn’t the service user, they’re the provider. And service users are notified of their presence. You know, informed consent. (FWIW the male cleaners where I work stand outside and wait till all the women have left, then clean.)

Wait, you mean it would be unreasonable to disrupt people’s lives in the name of protecting women’s spaces?!

I haven’t either, but that argument is used on here all the time to explain why trans women shouldn’t be allowed in women’s toilets.

I see your distinction between service users and those working in a service, and that’s still confusing to me.

It’s a GOR in a lot of single sex refuges to be a woman if you are a case worker. As we’ve heard many times, even hearing a man’s voice can be triggering for some survivors.

I see male cleaners in women’s toilets all the time, and I have never understood why people on here would be okay with it. For me it’s a contradiction to be okay with one and not the other. Regardless if someone is a service user or a cleaner, you can still ensure that person is female.

I find it to be an interesting exercise because it shows the beliefs on here that are being held about trans people being perverts (not that people on here are really hiding those beliefs any more).

Women come out of cubicles covered in blood, with their trousers open, partially undressed in other ways

I'm in my late 60s and have never seen a woman come out of a cubicle covered in blood or partially undressed. Ever.

The cleaner is not 'using the facilities', they're cleaning it. They're fully dressed and busy cleaning them. Fully dressed throughout.

Do you expect their employers to double the number of cleaners they have and need, just so that women clean the ladies' and men clean the mens'?

it's mental that TRAs will claim that men in dresses are no more risk to women than 8 year old boys.
They also claim that the men's toilets, deemed safe for unaccompanied 9 year old boys, are unsafe for grown men in dresses.

It seems reasonable to want restrict cleaners of women's toilets to be women. A compromise is to put up the "this bathroom is being cleaned by a male cleaner" sign. It would not be unreasonable to say that a permanent sign saying "this bathroom could be cleaned by a male cleaner" is inadequate. It would have to be argued carefully.

However, since the male cleaner is not a service user, it's not compulsory, and it doesn't change the single-sex nature of the service.

Banish is an interesting choice of words - it makes it sounds like you think cleaning women's toilets is a right, or prize, or privilege awarded to the men doing it. Something to think about in that.

Oh good Lord.

The male cleaner is excluded from using the women’s loos, just like all other men are. He is not a service user, he is in his workplace.

An analogy might be male staff and officers in a women’s prison, or a male doctor or nurse on a women’s hospital ward.