To highlight this case of voyeurism in what appears to have been a unisex toilet on private premises?

[BadSkiingMum]

I came across this case of a voyeur who placed phone cameras under the sink in a toilet. Note that this did not even make BBC news - this is on a local London website.

Women secretly recorded by south east London voyeur | This Is Local London

This was a toilet in a hairdresser, so not open to passers by and with the need to make a booking to enter the premises. So it would seem to be a low-risk environment. But unfortunately this did not prevent an employee from committing a crime. While the article is not clear that the toilet was unisex, presumably the offender was able to enter the toilet and place the phones inside because he was using it himself and was therefore unlikely to be challenged.

In my opinion this case suggests that unisex toilets, even those which are in what we could consider to be a relatively 'safe' environment, present greater risk than toilets separated by sex.

That doesn't change what I said. Men are still enabled to enter, no questions asked, and plant their cameras wherever they want, by having unisex toilets (which are not necessarily single cubicles). I don't consider my privacy, much less safety, at risk from other women in multi-stall toilets. Men? Hell no, they don't belong there.

Also, men have other ways of harassing women in unisex toilets (and in women’s toilets if men are allowed in because they say they’re women). Hanging around in the communal area, going into a cubicle to masturbate while listening to women peeing, rummaging through the bin, or simply being the only person there when a woman comes in on her own. All of these have been reported by women.

When things change and there is :

• nothing to gain for women, and
• everything to gain for males with perversions,

It's not surprising that women would object.

Women weren't consulted about this. The women who say it is OK for them have been conditioned to lower their boundaries to accommodate the wishes of males.

And I'm not talking about the occasions where an office /workspace only has one toilet due to size I'm talking about the increasing trend for gender neutral / unisex to appease a tiny minority of males.

Here is what I have used a public toilet for:

I have spent many days, often 2-3 times a week, where I had a stroller or pram jammed in the door because I had no one but myself to do shopping. And I didn’t need the change table so didn’t use the accessible toilet if there was one. That included at period time with flooding periods and hormonal diarrhoea. Particulary after pregnancy. Often with a crying infant.

I have also had to take my wheelchair bound elderly mother to a normal cubicle when there was no accessible toilet available. Where I couldn’t leave her to sit without assistance to remove the wheelchair to lock the door .

I, too, have washed clothing out, and at times had to unbutton shirts to get them dry from baby vomit, or leaking breasts.

I have even had to do this at work when I was stuck in an event for hours and could not leave to express so ended up with significant leakage. More than once. Because breastfeeding women work too.

And got dressed in work toilets for various reasons.

And cried there and comforted others. And hid there from men who wouldn’t take no for an answer.

I know I am not the only one because several times this past year I have come across half stripped women in the toilets while out dealing with similar issues.

The solution is not demanding gender neutral toilets or more unisex toilets. It is not fully enclosed cubicles. A female taking up a cubicle to wash and dry clothes is putting an undue time demand on those waiting to use that cubicle.

Many daily uses of the toilets involve use of the space outside the cubicle or with the toilet door open.

So, who does 'fully enclosed cubicles' actually help? Only those male people who wish to use the female spaces ultimately. Because now the line up for the toilet is longer. And if those cubicles are 'unisex', the male people are now also lining up. What a great solution!

There are many reasons that women do not want males in the toilet.

I often think it must be nice to never have had to deal with just period flooding the number of times I have since being a teenager. But it seems that there are many female people who have never had to deal with this. What a wonderfully privileged position to have been in! Well done those who have had this privilege who lack the understanding of that privilege and are happy to dismiss other's needs to retain female spaces as single sex with no male people.

I realise that I have very heavy periods compared to some people, but it certainly made me very aware of the need for single sex spaces. In fact, now in peri, I am on a menstrual leash. I cannot leave the house some days due to the flooding incidents, which is fine as those days I can work from home.

However, the female toilets have never been used just to ‘pee’. And I don't want any male person in the female toilets, even the ones who are someone's lovely fucking friends.

I am always surprised when people either never realised this or never acknowledge it.

He may have had access to a female only toilet anyway. In a small work place he may have been there on his own any number of times. He could’ve been first in or last out or left on his own when others popped out to lunch. I think if someone is going to do that sort of thing then they’ll do it, no public toilet is safe.

How would having separate toilets prevent this, even if you could mandate it? Any number of men have access to female-only toilets or can find a way to access them without being seen. Putting a picture of a stick figure wearing a skirt on the door isn’t going to work like a magic talisman and prevent crimes like this from occuring.

All that would happen if we suddenly decided unisex toilets are a no-go is that every small, independent business who can only sustain one loo - including cafes, bookshops, salons, etc - will have to relocate to different premises, which will probably cause them to fail.

We need to tackle this serious crime in a way which actually works - with effective prosecution and penalties, along with a serious investment in education and community outreach tackling misogyny and sexism.

"I think if someone is going to do that sort of thing then they’ll do it, no public toilet is safe."

While this is true, why have organisations added to the risk by removing female single sex spaces and converting them into mixed sex facilities? It is all very well to argue that there is a known risk element to using any toilet, however, it doesn't change the arguments against organisations making this change. And doesn't change the legitimacy of women and girls (in the cases of what has happened in schools) campaigns to have those spaces protected. Not that I am saying posters are against these campaigns.

"All that would happen if we suddenly decided unisex toilets are a no-go is that every small, independent business who can only sustain one loo - including cafes, bookshops, salons, etc - will have to relocate to different premises, which will probably cause them to fail."

And small businesses may only have the ability to provide a single toilet. However, larger businesses should maintain the provision of maintaining single sex spaces based on sex not gender. That way female people who don't feel comfortable to use that small business toilet might if the location permits it, find a larger business with a single sex provision.

"We need to tackle this serious crime in a way which actually works - with effective prosecution and penalties, along with a serious investment in education and community outreach tackling misogyny and sexism."

I disagree. I think we need to tackle this in any way that we can. Considering just how few cases of sexual abuse get to court in the first place, and the issue of the lack of penalty, leaving it up 'authorities' and education is not going to be the only means needed to address this issue.

I agree, don't make it easier for them where possible. So much can be done with the designs of public toilets to make a pervert's work more difficult. But in small shop premises there is likely to be only one toilet anyway.

To angrily proclaim we're all privileged and have never experienced these things just because we don't agree with you is ridiculous.

I have experienced all but the wheelchair scenario and have severe endometriosis, I often desperately need a toilet and flood.

Every unisex toilet I've ever been in has been a room with a toilet, sink and lockable door. I had the whole room to myself and it really wasn't an issue.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a privileged idiot who can't conceive situations where privacy might be required.

Every unisex toilet I've ever been in has been a room with a toilet, sink and lockable door.

These are dangerous too. Most notably for people who have seizures, people who are suddenly taken ill, and women whose drinks have been spiked. Passers-by might not realise someone has collapsed in one of those toilets or be able to access the toilet room quickly enough to save the person.

It is also easier to sexually assault someone in an enclosed room than a cubicle.

The safest toilets for women, mitigating both sets of risks, are single sex toilets with traditional cubicles.

A few points:

this sort of thing is a gateway crime to much worse. Dominique Pelicot was caught because he was upskirting women in a shop.

as has just been pointed out (cross-post), ceiling-to-floor cubicles are much less safe for people who are taken ill / are shooting up / choking / attempting suicide.

there are loads of campaigns to improve women's safe access to single-sex toilets in the developing world because of the huge prevalence of sexual assault when women don't have such access. See for example https://www.habitatforhumanity.org.uk/too-scared-to-go/

it's bonkers to remove that safety net in the developed world. Fine if you are a tiny café, but for large institutions, it's actively courting an increase in sexual assault.

Putting a picture of a stick figure wearing a skirt on the door isn’t going to work like a magic talisman and prevent crimes like this from occuring.

I mean, it clearly keeps almost all men out, because otherwise the population mix in all toilets would be 50-50. Fewer men means those that go in are liable to stand out and can be called out.

Where is the anger? You seem very keen to position other's opinions as 'anger'.

I have not said that people who disagree with me on small business toilets is a privileged idiot. However, I do consider that someone dismissing people's valid concerns about unisex toilets is either in a privileged position or has a motivation that certainly doesn't consider the needs of female people who need to use toilets that are single sex. If you have another motivation for dismissing this as an issue, please post it so others understand.

Not only is there concerns because of the issues that I mentioned. Fully enclosed cubicles and rooms can be dangerous for many reasons. So, organisations that are large enough to have segregated toilets with gaps under the doors are safer. For people who collapse in the cubicle and for identitifying if a person is being attacked in the cubicle just as two examples.

Cross posted.

Thank you. These scenarios are often not considered.

Nor is the time taken to deal with these issues in a unisex fully enclosed cubicle (in organisations large enough to have segregated toilets) meaning that the queues are longer.

At a school near me, one of the teachers put cameras in the girls' toilets. So having separate toilets isn't a protection if they can be entered by someone "after hours"

Your post sounded very ranty to me. Hence the assumption of anger. Lots of exclamation marks and telling people they are privileged for never having problems, which actually isn't true, denotes anger.

I have no motivation for unisex toilets to be a thing, I simply see it for what it is, more identity politics trying to distract people from the real issues going on in society. It's a distraction.

I have seen you dominating several threads to do with the La Leche League issue telling women who disagree with the way you talking about low suppliers and galactagogues that they were limiting discussions even though what you were saying was offensive to them. You come across as angry and argumentative tbh.

I have no intention of engaging in a several pages argument with you like other posters have done though, so have a good day.

Sure. That is not a reason to ignore the original purpose and the continued need of having single sex spaces when it is possible. Or do you disagree that female people need single sex toilets because someone can do this already?

In my first job 35 years ago I was in exactly the “safest” type of toilet you describe here and a man came in to the office and up the stairs, into the ladies toilets and perved on me over the top of the cubicle three times. He ran off when I screamed.

The only way to stop this is floor to ceiling cubicles with lockable doors (if you want to make a point of it yes these could be opened from the outside in the event of an emergency as are designed now) and insufficient space at the top and the bottom of those doors so that someone can’t stand on the toilet seat in the next cubicle and look over at you to get their rocks off.

And I would be very surprised if the sort of person who enjoys this wouldn’t prefer women’s only toilets anyway.

"Your post sounded very ranty to me."

Because of two exclamation marks? And three sentences discussing how some people will have come from this from a position where they have not considered women's and girl's needs outside their own limited experiences?

Your posts come across as dismissing argument against unisex toilets, either through what you consider to be pragmatism or whatever your reasons.

"more identity politics trying to distract people from the real issues going on in society. It's a distraction."

I see. So, we should not be having discussions about the safety of toilet configurations because you, personally, don't wish to have those discussions. You see it as a part of 'identity politics' and that it has a very low priority to what you consider the 'real issues going on in society'. Good to know. So, you do see the issues, you just choose to dismiss those who wish to discuss it.

So why is it so very necessary for you to put the wishes of some males ahead of women who don't want it?

Yes, but why make it easier for these disgusting men?

We know that these so-called "minor" sexual crimes are often indicators for escalation to major assaults such as rape. First the Peeping Tom or the flasher, then minor upskirting, then violent assault. This was the pattern for that violent rapist & murdering policeman ... (don't want to use his name).

Every unisex toilet I've ever been in has been a room with a toilet, sink and lockable door. I had the whole room to myself and it really wasn't an issue.

Every unisex toilet I've been in has had cubicles with just a toilet, and then a row of sinks and driers outside them in the common space.

No that wasn't my angle at all, I'm not arguing against single sex toilets. I do understand my post might have come across a bit like "what's the point". But I was highlighting the potential need to not only have women's toilets but also limited access to them out of hours, as I realised the hiding of cameras etc. probably doesn't happen during working/open hours

Once you are in the cubical, aren't unisex toilets more private as the doors and walls are floor to ceiling with wash basins inside the toilet? That's what our unisex toilets were like at work.