Good Law Project to report Sex Matters over 'deviant' remark

Councils are not responsible for many toilets anymore. Years of misuse, subsequent funding issues and the fact they are not legally obliged to provide toilet provision means that this exercise was always going to be futile.

Why would the council log a complaint about a man being in the women’s toilets at a pub? Or a workplace? What would they log it under? Why would anyone think to ring up the council - what would that achieve?

The only thing the very time consuming report shows is that there is no system in place for people to collate what’s going on in toilets.

I imagine she does tbh. She has zero truck with transgenderism though so I don’t know why Bailey is citing her in support of their odd arguments.

While we're at it, what does Camille Paglia think about women's refuges? Does she think the abused women who go there are just wimps who should have stayed at home and toughed it out?

I know it is difficult for activists but did you literally just Google 'why do they have separate toilets'?

I asked why YOU think we have separate sex toilets? Why are there rules around why they put signs up when male cleaners are in there? Why do they exist now?

Because they are a vestige from the Victorian era with recent decades of resistance. Patriarchal influences die hard it appears.

Interestingly before then, communal was quite the thing.

It's a historical analysis of reasoning which isn't really relevant today.
I'm not trans so I can't speak for them & like all groups I'm sure they aren't a monolith in thinking. But I can speak for myself as a woman & say I have zero issues with unisex toilets but I can empathise with being discriminated in the right to chose.

It seems there's a wilful determination to ignore the difference between women having the use of a temporary refuge from the patriarchal gaze, and women being forbidden to leave it.

The problem with this bad faith analysis is it just assumes there's only one 'legitimate' approach to feminism as in 'safetyism'. I'm not suggesting there isn't legitimate justification to this approach but rather that's not the only one. Where safetyism feminism focuses on protection, safe spaces, and framing women as inherently vulnerable to systemic harm or micro aggressions, Agency/Power feminism focuses on autonomy, personal responsibility, empowerment & risk taking.

Camille Paglia provides a great insight into this:

"Paglia: When I arrived in college in 1964, in loco parentis was operative. I was in a girl's dorm. We had a sign-in at 11:00 at night. The boys could run free. They had panty raids. We threw water at them out the windows and so on. My generation of women rose up and said, "Get out of our private lives!" And the university said, "No, the world is dangerous. We must protect you against rape and attack and all those things." And we said, "Give us freedom! Give us freedom to risk rape! That is true freedom!”

https://reason.com/2015/05/30/everythings-awesome-and-camill/

Agency feminists think safetyism promotes women as being inherently weak & by extension regresses to separate sphere of influence structures.

I suspect how a woman approaches feminism like other politics has a lot to do with individual personality traits, experience & cultural influences.

oh yeah nice white civilised men completely different

The data on sexual violence between poor/wealthy warring/peaceful jurisdictions speaks for itself.

More grim was young women taking up cam-girling to prove their non-safetyist credentials.

It never gets old excusing capitalism & instead blaming women's liberty for the debasement of society.

It's a historical analysis of reasoning which isn't really relevant today.
I'm not trans so I can't speak for them & like all groups I'm sure they aren't a monolith in thinking. But I can speak for myself as a woman & say I have zero issues with unisex toilets but I can empathise with being discriminated in the right to chose.

oh yeah nice white civilised men completely different
Sorry I forgot
But oh my salad days the memories flooding back! Were you reading in a pomo addled humanities department in the 90s? I remember women swearing blind the women's toilets in their department were beats too!! See we're just as cool as the boys. Crazy days but at least it was all safely cloistered in the ivory towers and not spewing out into public policy and legislation.
More grim was young women taking up cam-girling to prove their non-safetyist credentials. Paglia was bright and instightful but she was bloody irresponsible at times, too.

Poverty & safety issues go hand in hand. We ain't talkin' third world conditions here.

Because they are a vestige from the Victorian era with recent decades of resistance. Patriarchal influences die hard it appears.

Interestingly before then, communal was quite the thing.

I know it is difficult for activists but did you literally just Google 'why do they have separate toilets'?

I asked why YOU think we have separate sex toilets? Why are there rules around why they put signs up when male cleaners are in there? Why do they exist now?

Oh, this make more sense. That other article you posted is really very strange.
Oxfam and other aid workers campaign for women's separate amenities in refugee camps, and cities with large numbers of impoverished people living in slums. I can't get my head around the argument that what they're campaigning for is an opportunity for displaced and impoverished women to play at being weak, dainty ladies.
Safety, dignity, privacy. Straightforward, no silly nonsense.

So you would say this is the most common understanding of the reason for sex segregated amenities among trans women? That it's about a social performance of feminine weakness?
And they want to be able to pasrtipate in that performance, hence the fight for access to women's amenities?
That's quite the revealing misunderstanding.

"The article is about the USA, so of limited relevance here."

"Our Patriarchy isn't the same as theirs!"

😂

"In Victorian Britain, most public toilets were designed for men. Of course, this affected women’s ability to leave the home, as women who wished to travel had to plan their route to include areas where they could relieve themselves. Thus, women never travelled much further than where family and friends resided. This is often called the ‘urinary leash’, as women could only go so far as their bladders would allow them."

"However, the plans for a women’s toilet were set back by several years as men opposed the women’s toilets being situated next to the men’s.
In some cases, plans for women’s toilets were deliberately sabotaged. When a model of a women’s toilet was set up on the pavement in Camden High Street, hansom cabs (driven by men) deliberately drove into the model toilet to demonstrate that it was situated in a most inconvenient position!"

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/

Tell that to Elizabeth Fry. Prisons were mixed sex before they were single sex, and ending that wasn't just a matter of Victorian pearl-clutching about "proper spheres". There are very sound reasons why the Geneva Convention still specifies single sex for imprisonment. If men can, some will.
And I've no doubt that the women who campaigned for women's toilets were also under no illusions about how they'd be treated if they tried to colonise the gents'. Unlike transwomen intruding on women, they didn't have the physical advantage. And perhaps they had a bit of respect for the privacy and dignity of the men they would have been imposing their presence on, as well as for their own. It's not all about violence, sure, but it doesn't have to be. Not unless you're so scared of being thought prudish that you daren't expect - or allow others - any privacy at all.

Men and women do many things together now - many more than were possible in Victorian times; so why this sudden melodramatic screaming about "segregation" in relation to the very few spaces that are still single sex? It seems there's a wilful determination to ignore the difference between women having the use of a temporary refuge from the patriarchal gaze, and women being forbidden to leave it.

But of course, it isn't really about women's rights and freedoms at all, is it? If they were good little girls and let transwomen use the ladies', we wouldn't be hearing a word about "segregation".

Be careful what you wish for.

You can always rely on convenient assumptions by GC anhistorique 'feminists' that ironically excuse & enable patriarchal influences.

"In fact, laws in the U.S. did not even address the issue of separating public restrooms by sex until the end of the 19th century, when Massachusetts became the first state to enact such a statute. By 1920, over 40 states had adopted similar legislation requiring that public restrooms be separated by sex.
So why did states in the U.S. begin passing such laws? Were legislators merely recognizing natural anatomical differences between men and women?

I’ve studied the history of the legal and cultural norms that require the separation of public bathrooms by sex, and it’s clear that there was nothing so benign about the enactment of these laws. Rather, these laws were rooted in the so-called “separate spheres ideology” of the early-19th century – the idea that, in order to protect the virtue of women, they needed to stay in the home to take care of the children and household chores.

In modern times, such a view of women’s proper place would be readily dismissed as sexist. By highlighting the sexist origin of laws mandating sex-separation of public restrooms, I hope to provide grounds for at least reconsidering their continued existence."

https://theconversation.com/how-did-public-bathrooms-get-to-be-separated-by-sex-in-the-first-place-59575

Be careful what you wish for.

You can always rely on convenient assumptions by GC anhistorique 'feminists' that ironically excuse & enable patriarchal influences.

"In fact, laws in the U.S. did not even address the issue of separating public restrooms by sex until the end of the 19th century, when Massachusetts became the first state to enact such a statute. By 1920, over 40 states had adopted similar legislation requiring that public restrooms be separated by sex.
So why did states in the U.S. begin passing such laws? Were legislators merely recognizing natural anatomical differences between men and women?

I’ve studied the history of the legal and cultural norms that require the separation of public bathrooms by sex, and it’s clear that there was nothing so benign about the enactment of these laws. Rather, these laws were rooted in the so-called “separate spheres ideology” of the early-19th century – the idea that, in order to protect the virtue of women, they needed to stay in the home to take care of the children and household chores.

In modern times, such a view of women’s proper place would be readily dismissed as sexist. By highlighting the sexist origin of laws mandating sex-separation of public restrooms, I hope to provide grounds for at least reconsidering their continued existence."

https://theconversation.com/how-did-public-bathrooms-get-to-be-separated-by-sex-in-the-first-place-59575