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.

Thank you for clarifying. I would agree with that too. And you are right, after hours access is probably something that is rarely considered.

Yes I would agree

I don't think the hand wringing helps anyone and instills fear in society.

You think I'm the one that wants to dismiss posters when you're the one that consistently tries to shut people down by trying to make them look stupid so that you can push your narrative over everyone else's on multiple threads. Righto.

So what's your narrative @PaganPollyanna , i've asked upthread.

Why do you put the wishes of a minority of males above the wishes of women?

How and where have I tried to make you look 'stupid'? What narrative do I believe I have?

Or was it that I might have pointed out that you dismiss other's valid concerns based on nothing but that you don't consider the issues are worthy of discussion on MN or is it that you don't like the language people use to discuss issues that you do understand? Is that the issue?

"I don't think the hand wringing helps anyone and instills fear in society."

Can you explain why you think raising the issue of any male in a female single sex toilet does not help others to have wider knowledge and more informed discussions?

As someone who has been on a PTA where these issues are discussed, I consider this is most definitely an issue for discussion on MN. Just because the OP was about an issue in a hair salon, doesn't make the discussion about the case limited to small businesses.

Sorry

is it that you don't like the language people use to discuss issues that you do understand?

should be

is it that you don't like the language people use to discuss issues that you do understand are a valid concern for others?

Please show me where I have said that a minority of males wishes are more important than womens.

@Helleofabore Like I said, I am not engaging in a pages long argument with you like other posters have.

You still haven't provided any evidence for your claims. I'm going to assume you don't have any.

@PaganPollyanna

Well the trend towards 'gender neutral' or unisex toilets in public places is to appease the tiny minority of males who identify as trans women.

So given that you seem to be ignoring the voices of women who are saying that we don't want these facilities for the numerous reasons stated upthread very eloquently by Helle and other posters by saying that you don't mind them, I wonder whether you have an agenda to appease this tiny minority or whether alternatively you are just acting on the normal female socialisation of lowering boundaries because that's what men want?

I just can't see what's 'in it' for a woman? How does it benefit you so much that you are prepared to ignore the concerns of other women and who gains from that?

What claims? Have I missed something?

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.

But they're still dangerous if someone collapses. The gap at the bottom of the door makes someone having a medical emergency immediately visible in a way a floor-to-ceiling cubicle does not.

Single-sex toilets with traditional cubicles aren't failsafe, but they are still, on balance, safer. This is because they reduce (but not eliminate - sadly it's very difficult to keep them out completely) the risk of perverts, while making the cubicles safer for people with medical emergencies.

I am sorry that you were perved on in the ladies' toilets. I can only imagine how unsafe that must have made your workplace feel, especially as a junior colleague in a first job.

You do raise a very valid point. Low-footfall and isolated toilets can certainly be unsafe, even if well designed. I think that's something that we often overlook in this discussion - in terms of women's safety, the amount of traffic in the toilets is often just as important as the way the toilets are set up.

This claim. I asked previously if you had any evidence for this but you didn't reply.

The media aren't well known for presenting facts backed up by data on emotive issues.

So you've assigned a motive to me with no basis then.

This is nothing to do with trans women.

This was a single toilet/sink room in a small business space that is used by men and women at separate times, which is how unisex toilets are set up the majority of the time.

Are you ignoring all the women who have been saying it's not an issue to them either?

I haven't assigned anything to anyone Im simply asking a question which, for reasons that are yours alone, you are refusing to answer.

What benefit does this bathroom arrangements give to women in public spaces?

Most women on this thread do see an issue with it, you are ignoring those women and putting the wishes of males first because if there is no benefit to women then why else are public toilets up and down the country being made either gender neutral or unisex.

But whatever, you're not going to have a straight conversation with any of us are you?

I can come to my own conclusions about why that is the case.

I’m one of them, if that helps.

What’s in it for me is what there’s a toilet there, and I need one. Nothing more, nothing less.

My work toilets, coffee shops, garages - all always been unisex. We can’t boycott them all.

I worked for the NHS in a small clinic in children's care. We had one unisex toilet. A delivery man asked to use it and was in there quite a while. After he left I searched it high and low for any sign of hidden cameras.

It's a shame we have to be so suspicious but the modern inclination to ignore safeguarding for women and children has made predatory men so bold now.

When you give a man a gold medal for punching a woman in the face on international television it's in plain sight isn't it.

Yes but what about the drive towards public toilets elsewhere being made unisex?

Are you happy about that?

I posted evidence that it is a major issue in developing countries like India. Not good enough? There is also data pertaining to sexual assaults in single-sex changing facilities in the uk which I am sure someone will provide.

I still feel that there are inherent risks, as per my OP, but also wonder if there might be a case for devising a single sex toilet room of a seamless design that effectively prevents anything from being placed or left behind? Or perhaps even detected?

I know cameras can be tiny, but surely there is something that can be developed...

Not “happy,” as such - I’m as unbothered as I am about the ones in Costa.

There are so many spaces where they already are, I’m not sure what the difference is.

Yup. I was at a theatre the other night (in a v woke suburb) where they'd done the lazy thing of just converted two sets of ordinary previously single-sex cubicles into "gender neutral." No privacy.

They are NOT "gender neutral." They are mixed sex.

I had to ask at the box office where the Ladies lavatories were. The first thing the person told me was "Oh the gender neutral ones are over there" (points to easily accessible loos on the ground floor off the foyer). "No, I want the single sex ones" - she gave me the wrong directions & they were 2 floors up.

Gah!

Yup. I was at a theatre the other night (in a v woke suburb) where they'd done the lazy thing of just converted two sets of ordinary previously single-sex cubicles into "gender neutral." No privacy.

And usually there's pee on the seat and on the floor. Men possibly don't notice this in their own loos as they don't have to sit in it.

Thank you for this. Yes it was certainly let’s say character building. I would still support women’s toilets as the ideal, but I did want to make the point that they are not a panacea. And I definitely do think some pervy men like the very idea of a woman’s toilet rather than a unisex one.

The one thing that always strikes me about incidents like this is how little technology actually benefits women.
We feel safe cos we've got our mobile phone on us, yet find there's another phone, belonging to a complete stranger, pointed at our crotch as we change a tampon.

It shouldn't really come as a surprise, I guess, as most techy people are males, after all.

I'd like a techy product that fries the perp's testicles with 900 volts when used inappropriately. A condition of being allowed a phone is the embedding of a chip to do just that.

That'd stop it. For all but a few masochists.....