Schoolgirl kicked in head by boy in unisex toilets- is the idea of unisex unworkable?

What I'm struggling to understand is why action wasn't taken sooner.

The fact the locks were broken as a result of boys kicking the doors in, shows this behaviour had been happening for some time yet was not addressed.

Why not?

It took a girl to be injured before anyone took any notice but prior to that girls being intimidated/locks broken/pictures being attempted was presumably not actionable?

Females need single sex spaces.

If that were my daughter I’d be going to the police to report the boy for assault. I’d also want his phone checked by the police to check for inappropriate photos he’d taken, and if he has shared any, he should also be charged with sharing indecent images.

I’d want the book thrown at the little shit.

At the same time I’d be contacting the Safe School Alliance for help and advice on how to proceed with the school management, to ensure they are protecting the females in their school.

Yes. Its always the way to blame women for mens behaviour, rather than block male access for their disgusting predatory behaviour.

What kind of work does your school do to ensure that these ideologically driven mixed sex toilets are serving the kids who are forced to use them and that there are notunseen consequences like those outlined by It'sShiela going un-noted and unrecorded ?

So your argument is ‘Women, listen up! Men are going to hurt you anyway so quit trying to make it harder for them’

Yep, they probably also think that girls can just not get educated and stay at home if they want to be safe, and women should too, rather than do any reasonable proven risk-based prevention (like single sex toilets). It's all a bit Taliban adjacent.

This is about safety, privacy and dignity. Even if the boys all behaved beautifully and respectfully in those unisex toilets, there's still the issue of privacy and dignity. Girls changing their sanitary products less frequently for fear of boys overhearing. Girls holding in their wee all day and getting sick. And heaven knows how stressful the shared loos must be for people with irritable bowel syndrome. It's not rocket science - give girls their single-sex facilities to minimise their risk of harm, and at the same time, educate all males to be decent, respectful, law-abiding people.

Space is always the issue. It is unlikely that a school will have sufficient space for mixed sex and single sex toilet facilities all on the same floor.
At my daughter's school there are mixed sex toilets on the ground floor and the first floor. The only single sex toilets are on the second floor. My daughter doesn't want to use the mixed sex toilets because the boys hang out in there and comment at them. If the students are late to lessons they get sanctioned. They can't use the toilets during lesson times. My daughter developed a UTI as she was scared to use the mixed sex toilets. She had a course of antibiotics and missed a couple of days at school as a result. A friend's daughter doesn't drink all day in order to avoid using the toilets.
I find it really concerning that their lives are being impacted so much because of mixed sex toilets in schools.

We need a heavy dose of sarcasm emoji.

Yep. I know you're being sarcastic, but I genuinely, truly would not be surprised if some of the desperate apologists on here actually do think removing doors would be the way to go forward. Having read their desperate flailing about, it's the corridors fault! It's not the fault of the toilet! They'll do it anyway! excuses, NOTHING would surprise me any more.

People will get heroin anyway, so making laws won't stop them.
People will get crystal meth anyway, so making laws won't stop them.
Men will rape women anyway, so why make rape illegal. It won't stop them.

It's the same, desperate, pitiful logic these brainwashed people use. ANYthing, as long as they can say the issue is not the issue. Look over there! Anywhere! The cause is not the cause. What we see is not real. Imagine being so wedded to an ideology that you have to lose all respect by dragging corridors and 'they'll do it anyway' into it. I mean, I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if my ideology meant I had to sink to that level. I feel embarrassed for them.

There are a lot of posters here arguing, ‘we have a real problem with violence and aggression from teenage boys so we really should not be focusing on toilets’

Do you realise that your argument is:
‘The real problem of male violence towards girls and women means that we don’t need to keep single sex provisions’

Can you really not see that makes NO sense?

Singje sex provision is the first line of defense women and girls have. There will always be violent men. We will always need that line of defense.

Singje sex provision also sends a clear message to both sexes that women and girls are entitled to assert boundaries and to have privacy and dignity away from men. That’s a really important message that we need to maintain. It’s an important message on the basic rights of women as human beings, on safeguarding and on our position as a society against male violence against women and girls.

Just because something might happen anyway we shouldn't make it easier for goodness sake, usually coming from the same people with the rubbish argument as "my toilet at home is unisex" as some kind of gotcha.

So, you might have a boy with bad intentions seeing a girl go into the toilet. He waits until he thinks the coast is clear to go in, but just at that moment a teacher comes around the corner and catches him. It's a single sex toilet. So he's made to go on his way, and the teacher checks if there was anyone in there and that they leave safely. He's also now on that teacher's radar.

Same situation, he's about to follow her into the toilet. Teacher comes around the corner. It's a mixed sex toilet. Teacher doesn't bat an eyelid and carries on. Girl is attacked.

Now, you might say with a single sex toilet, maybe he'll just try again another time. Maybe he will. Or maybe he knows the teacher has clocked him now so abandons the idea altogether.

But my point is, in the scenario above, in this instance, single sex vs mixed has made the difference to that girl. Why would you want to remove the thing that has protected her? Why?

Exactly. It’s bad enough anyway without all this. My heart breaks for these girls and the the utter contempt with which the school hold their needs.

I was told that our single sex toilets were removed and replaced with mixed sex toilets for the ‘non binaries’ (their words). They didn’t seem to notice that the ratio of existing proper unisex toilets and ‘non binary’ students was already approx 1:1.

Meanwhile all girls suffer.

Single sex toilets also give the message of boundaries and that having boundaries is ok.

Who exactly benefits from undermining boundaries and children's sense that boundaries are normal and should be respected?

Yep. I know you're being sarcastic, but I genuinely, truly would not be surprised if some of the desperate apologists on here actually do think removing doors would be the way to go forward

I know. As I was typing it I was contemplating the possibility that someone out there might actually think I meant it. Or might even take the idea and run with it. That is how insane some people's twisted logic has become, in order to increase their own gains.

Also, though I'm sure it's been said, there are not enough toilets as it is in schools with the rammed days with very short breaks in which toilets can be accessed. Having 'some' gender neutral and some single sex is not a solution - it reduces the number of toilets available to the vast majority of pupils who want to use single sex facilities.

Why would you want to do it? What benefit is there to these mixed sex facilities?

"To be clear, I've said on this thread, I think there should be choice for students. I don't think schools should remove all single sex provision, and students should be consulted on what they would prefer. If the majority want single sex, then the majority of provision should be single sex, etc. Suitable provision does have to be legally provided for trans students, though."

Great.

"Do you honestly believe a boy who is kicking a toilet door in and injuring a girl would not be of any risk to girls if there were no mixed sex toilets in school?"

And where have I indicated that I would believe this.

Let me reword it. Why would any school increase the risk to girls by removing single sex toilet options? I am talking about how unisex toilets increase the risks to girls and why any school would add to the stress of girl's by only having unisex toilets.

I am not denying that a boy kicking the toilet door in is not a risk at all. I believe and I suspect you agree, that any erosion of safety should be avoided. And I suspect you agree because you have said that there should be a choice, wish I agree with.

"And yes, genuinely, the police often aren't interested- regardless of what kind of toilets you have. Even when the school is asking them to get involved because they believe a crime has been committed."

And again, this is very concerning.

Because the school is too scared to admit there is a problem with mixed sex toilets. Because then they would have to go back to single sex toilets. and that would make them scared of being accused of transphobia. And apparently merely being accused of transphobia is more scary than the actual and genuine safeguarding failures girls are experiencing.

So they would rather ignore the real accounts from parents of the harms girls are experiencing ( they are just cis girls- whatever!) , than face the theoretical accusation of transphobia.

Single sex toilets unconsciously also teach boys that there are some spaces they cannot enter, that there are some boundaries around women that they cannot cross and must respect.

Why would you want to undermine that message or take it away?

Saying mixed sex toilets is a red herring is like me refusing to wear a seatbelt because other people should drive more safely.

It just makes me so sad. Women and girls are the collateral damage here for the wants of males.

What message are we giving our girls? That their dignity and safety, even in school, comes second to the demands of activists who want to make sure that males get access to everything?

It's just so regressive.

Unisex toilets cannot be paraded as a brilliant implementation for teenagers based simply on the lack of reported sexual assaults. Not only does that ignore the incidences which may not be reported due to embarrassment, shame, lack of proof or fear or repercussion etc but it also ignores the discomfort from girls having to be at their most vulnerable (partially undressed, exposed) in a unisex space, and is not something that can be accurately measured. Even if the girls are asked, it's making the assumption they'd all be comfortable to speak up despite being aware of the backlash many face for doing so.

If unisex toilets are considered a success because they don't appear to have led to an increase in sexual assaults, despite the fact sexual assaults are statistically more likely to take place in unisex toilets compared to single-sex toilets, this review is incredibly simplistic and does not take into account the discomfort of many girls using them and the self-exclusion of many more girls who no longer want to use them. The comfort, privacy and safety of girls has not been considered when implementing unisex toilets and either reducing or removing same-sex spaces altogether.

Or not putting your chickens in a coup overnight because foxes can dig.

Still not heard any attempt at saying why mixed sex toilets are a good thing or how they benefit pupils or schools.

But he can go into this toilet, it'd be hard for him to explain why he's in a girls toilet wouldn't it?

Keep unisex toilets for work places ie adults - though I'm always a bit shocked that men don't flush after a wee, I appreciate it saves water, but it's dirty imo.

In schools let people who don't identify with their sex use toilets for people with disabilities but related the toilets accordingly cos noones saying they have a disability, they don't.

That the thing about boundaries through, isn't it, it doesn't stop people crossing them, it alerts you to the fact that they did.