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.

So progressive -

https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/mixed-gender-toilets-have-negative-impact-girls

But women ARE self excluding, that's not hyperbole. It's what is actually happening.

But that's OK because it's good for businesses?

Your friends clearly don't care about sexual assault survivors and religious minority women who are impacted by these changes. Women's rights are less important than the benefits to businesses and the benefits of males? That's a new kind of feminism I must say.

In the Times Educational Supplement, it mentions that vandalism to toilets happens less when the toilets in schools are unisex, this is mentioned as a benefit of the arrangement.

I am sure @PaganPollyanna will be along in a minute to tell us that her mates reckon that that girls in school being responsible for the behaviour of boys in a toilet setting is consistent with feminism and women's rights because it 'benefits' the local authority.

That’s the point isn’t it. They’re self excluding.

If I choose to no longer use the bathroom at work, because it’s gender neutral, that’s a choice I’ve made. Nobody has banned me from using it, I decided not to.

I haven’t lost access to a space, I’ve chosen not to use it.

Oh my goodness you've actually gone there.

So the fact that women who sexual assault victims and religious minority women no longer have toilet facilities is absolutely fine.

It truly is a man's world.

I'm shocked that this is your opinion. You no doubt think you are progressive, this is the opposite.

And @SleeplessInWherever this is not just about toilets at work, it is about public places generally.

I really find your attitude to the needs of women disturbing.

It seems that when specifically asked about whether they want single sex toilets, gender neutral in ADDITION to single sex toilets vs gender neutral toilets, the opinions of women have been pretty consistent.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/support-for-separate-toilets-for-men-and-women-and-gender-neutral-toilets-in-public-spaces?crossBreak=female

According to this, UK women polled in August 2024 50% wanted only single sex, 42% wanted single sex in addition to gender neutral. In the past year, support for additional gender neutral with the provision of single sex toilets has decreased quite a bit.

I don't consider any female poster to be in an echo chamber if they are stating that they are not comfortable in gender neutral only provisions.

And in an employment setting @SleeplessInWherever I think an employer will get into an awful lot of trouble if it fails to provide adequate facilities to a woman. An employer is likely to fall foul of equality legislation if it fails to provide facilities that a woman of a religious minority is able to use because religious belief is a protected characteristic under the equality act as is sex.

Obviously there may be small employer exemptions but general speaking employers failing to address religious beliefs will result in a successful discrimination claim.

I don’t think I’m progressive.

I think we already lived in a world where toilets in public spaces (like the ones listed previously) were mutual spaces. Some of those public spaces have literally always had just one toilet, and never had a female only space. This isn’t a new thing.

I used them then, without issue, I use them now.

Unless I lived under a rock, this whole thing about whether that’s right or not hasn’t been going on for all of that time.

I don’t understand, in any way, why we’re suddenly having these heated debates about places that never had a separate space to begin with.

Where were we going then? Who was shouting at hairdressers 10 years ago for just having one bathroom? From what I remember - nobody. Certainly not this loudly.

So why the sudden anger about it? Did the women you refer to not matter until the last few years?

This thread has moved on from single toilets in hairdressers to other toilet facilities.

It is hard to escape notice that toilets are increasingly turning gender neutral, in art galleries, shopping centres, schools, train stations, theatres women's single sex provisions are being removed, sometimes altogether in favour of unisex or mixed gender.

You know that because it has been pointed out upthread so it is clear that you are attempting to minimise a very real issue.

Very well said.

It's only when people started complaining about transgender people, which also only really became an issue that people really cared about in the last couple of years, that anyone started caring about unisex toilets.

I’m not minimising it.

If we were okay to use the toilets in hairdressers, and other places that only have one, why would that be an issue in an art gallery. We can’t choose where to have a problem with something.

I’ll use a shared space in a garage but not in a shopping centre?

Even on the larger scale you mention - I just don’t see it as an issue. I’m no more unsafe in a bathroom than I am anywhere else. It’s genuinely not that deep for me.

If I was in a museum that once had a female bathroom but now had a unisex one, I would honestly just go to the toilet if I needed it. I’m not sure I’d even hesitate.

Exactly.

There’s a toilet there, use it or don’t, but quite why everyone has to get a headache about it I’ll never understand.

It all boils down to 'I'm alright jack' then.

Well that's good for the pair of you.

You'll never understand why some women feel discomfort?

You could try listening to women on this, but this is the thing, you won't because the needs of minority women are irrelevant to you and women's comfort is irrelevant.

You can go 'blah blah blah' I'm not listening all you like but women are and will continue to speak up for the rights of women v the wishes of males.

There was more than one link about girls dehydrating themselves to avoid school gender neutral toilets. It is now actually quite well documented as an issue that the schools and government need to address. It most certainly is not just Kemi Badenoch that discusses it, but surely you noticed that at the time she was in a ministerial position discussing an issue that the government at the time recognised?

You don't mean to dismiss anyone's concerns.... yet you have.

"It’s also a bit late in the day for research and figures, tbh. So it’s quite unlikely I’ll be rummaging about for any."

I am happy to save you the effort and post the statistics if you want. I can link up the UK MoJ prison statistics if you want to see it for yourself. The group I asked you to post evidence about does not have a lower rate of committing sex crime than the general male population. I would be surprised if any adult male group in the UK would be found to have had a lower rate of committing sex crime.

So, considering this is the case, single sex toilets were there to protect female people from male people who sought to harm them in the first place and they are still needed. They are also needed for privacy and dignity.

Of course, small businesses often don't have the space to offer more than one toilet. However, where they offer more than one toilet, women can campaign that organisations offer single sex toilets again. It is a valid and legitimate concern to discuss.

I think there's a difference between a single toilet kept nice in a lovely salon populated mainly by women (well the ones I've been to) where it can't be helped that there's only one toilet due to space, or shitty Costa/Starbucks where I probably wouldn't use anyway as they're usually rank as they don't have enough staff to keep on top of it, or a plane where you literally have no choice but to pee and get out as there's usually a queue of people waiting - limited space, to places where they do have enough space and toilets to segregate by sex but choose not to in the name of inclusivity and progressiveness.

Gender neutral toilets where space isn't an issue and where men can use are usually rank, seats up, piss on the floor.

I was in a busy family friendly pub during the day in East London and all (there was more than average number of toilets) were all gender neutral. I watched a woman guide this small girl past a man pissing with the door open whilst his pal mulled about. Wee girl looked petrified and I just thought to myself 'yeah this is so inclusive’ 🙄.

I don't feel unsafe per se. I just hate them when there's no need for them and most of the women I know feel the same. I also wouldn’t discredit other people’s feelings just because I’m alright about something.

And 'men pretending to be women' they don't need to do that do they? Unisex toilets literally allow any man in.

Why do you keep making it about transgender people?

I could try listening to women? Women are speaking up for the rights of women? Women’s comfort is irrelevant?

I am one. I don’t need to listen to the views of women to shape my view… as a woman.

Is it truly that hard to believe that other women don’t require this ongoing debate?

I mean this genuinely - there’s no point linking any research, figures of government data, I won’t open them.

I’m not saying that out of stubbornness, I’m saying it out of genuine lack of desire to go rummaging around/reading through it.

Men are a risk. But they’re a risk when I’m walking down the street. A door indicating that only women shall pass, will not protect me from them.

The dangerous men I’ve encountered wouldn’t have wasted their time following me into a bathroom.

It’s not that I don’t understand the risks men present, it’s that that risk exists everywhere, so I don’t isolate it to whether I have a set female space. That space wouldn’t save my life if needed, and you know that. It’s an argument that in my opinion changes precisely nothing, and has only been born out of the gender debate in recent years.

This is interesting.

You believe that because in your mind there is no debate to be had that other women shouldn't discuss it?

Astonishing.

Are there other issues that we should all defer to you on? I'm surprised you post on Mumsnet being 'all knowing' about all matters that impact women. Why are you even on this thread?

Great. So glad that we have that sorted. You won't read anything because you have a genuine lack of desire.

So, why then have you spent so much time telling women who do care that they shouldn't be on a thread to discuss the issues when the thread is about the issues under discussion?

Because back to the original point - the article in the post wasn’t.

The article, was about a man, who identified as a man, being in a pre existing shared space. It has been turned into a debate about something else.

Also didn’t tell anyone to not be here, by the way.

Is the bar really 'you won't be attacked, you're more likely to be attacked elsewhere, no man is going to attack you in a toilet' as a reason to discredit something?

Are we just not allowed to feel the merest of uncomfortableness or discomfort?

I think this has become much more of an issue with the proliferation of mobile camera technology, video streaming and ever smaller digital devices.

I think it is to try to portray any woman who disagrees that gender neutral toilets don't increase the risk of harm as being hatefully focused on a particular group of male people.

The significance is, of course, that there are no groups of adult male people in the UK who should be considered to have any less risk than the general male UK population when considering safeguarding issues.