To be annoyed at being told to be considerate of disabled people

[DefendingPan]

This sign was in the disabled toilet in a restaurant (which is also the only baby change in the restaurant).

What’s the point of this sign? What might parents be doing that they will stop after reading this?

Then type that then. You cannot just assume that people can read your mind, or will necessarily infer that is what you meant. Here have your eye roll back, it is not warranted.

But everyone who chooses to use the disabled facilities when they don't have a disability IS inserting themselves between someone who may need it.

Not if supply outstrips demand.

Its ironic you have insulted me several times yet are trying to suggest I am at fault.

I think it's pointing out that people changing babies should be considerate and not linger.

Well quite. And adult DC very evidently has a disability. She'd been hammering on the door for several minutes while we finished up in there, and we really weren't in there very long. I don't know what she expected me to do - just leave the loo in the middle of toileting adult DC?

Right, but if you and your kids were in the singular disabled toilet in mcdonalds or KFC or whatever, and then I am also in the same facility and I need the bathroom then the supply doesn't outstrip the demand but you won't care that you've just basically put me 4th in the queue because of you and your 2 kids because all you saw was an empty bathroom, although not 1 metre away will you find the door for the ladies.

Its a bit shortsighted to think that a bathroom being empty means it's not in demand. We don't live in bathrooms like trolls live under bridges.

Even in the busiest areas of shopping centres the most I've seen is 2 disabled toilets to one row of women's and one row of mens.

So if 1 disabled toilet in a small establishment like a fast food restaurant is in demand then 2 next to eachother in a busy place that has a capacity of thousands is definitely going to be in demand because there will be more disabled people in that area.

You wouldn't be able to look around the establishment and single me out as a disabled person who has double urgency disabilities and sensory issues that mean I can't use other facilities because my disabilities are hidden, so you couldn't actually gauge the demand by glancing.

I wouldn’t have an issue using the ladies in a small establishment, I’ve actually outlined that quite clearly in my posts.

It seems that everyone has the right to use them other than those who actually have disabilities and can’t access any other toilet.

Will add this post is actually about accessible toilets anyway. Nobody has a legal right to tell a parent they are less entitled. You might think your need or disability trumps the safety of a child but as a Mother I wouldn’t place my children in a risky situation for fear of a disabled person also needing the loo whilst I’m in there. We don’t go in there for the day. We pee and leave. Its a balance of needs not
one group trumping another and as a consequence demanding they put themselves at risk.

@Sirzy this thread just encapsulates the entitled attitude of so many nowadays. It's really sad.

I know I've been quite 'frustrated' on this thread, and been rapped for it, but I have a close disabled relative and knowing how much their lives are impacted every single day by their disability...I just find it incomprehensible that so many people are so selfish.

Ok and as I've just established, in larger establishments and facilities the accessible bathrooms and facilities don't increase proportionately with the capacity of people in the vicinity.

More people=higher number of disabled people in that vicinity too but if the disabled bathroom facilities have only increased from 1 at mcdonalds to 2 in the east wing of a shopping centre there is a higher demand for those disabled facilities by actual disabled people.

A disability accessible bathroom being empty at the time you happen upon it does not mean it isn't in demand. It's in more demand in busier areas because there are more disabled people who will need to use at some point through their stay the very limited resource that is available.

Just use one of the other toilets. Use your able bodied legs to go to another facility that can house you and your kids safely instead of compromising disabled people.

I should have said "only available" baby change.

I have a disabled relative too, in particular a teenage niece who is a wheelchair user and severe learning disabilities and so needs assistance to use the toilet and, on occasion, be changed if she has soiled herself. I don’t take her out so much now but pre children I did frequently. My views are not formed from a lack of experience of disability and the challenges being disabled poses. But those are not mutually exclusive to the desire to keep my children safe in busy venues. Again, it’s a balance of needs.

It's so sad how we all judge each other. Because people abuse the facilities people who are not obviously disabled get stick for using the toilets they need.

I have a male autistic child who doesn't look disabled. I took him in with me to the female toilet for years out of worry I would look like one of these entitled parents. He soils and that very difficult to clean up in a tiny cubicle. He's too old now to enter the female space but I can't let him go to the toilet alone he would act inappropriately/dangerously. I can't leave him while I go as he would just wander off. I'm appreciative of the extra space to clean him up. (I wish the changing tables had higher weight limits!) So we have to use the disabled toilet because of his disability. I have a toddler so the buggy will come in too. I can get such evil looks from people when I take my son to the toilet I hate it

I agree
However
Provision for women is lacking if they are no longer allowed to also use accessible toilets as they are factored into the use calculations

For every urinal in order for male and female provision to be equal you need three wc cubicles for women. That’s just in terms of time needed for use
It doesn’t account for
women with children
women needing to change sanitary products
more women have incontinence issues
women get pregnant and need the toilet more
etc

If we exclude them from their entire allocated provision we are reducing WC availability for them
So I agree morally we have a duty to include all those who are permitted the use of accessible toilets

Be tempting to say 'it's ok darling, let's move away from the ignorant woman'

But the allocation for those with disabilities is even worse. They shouldn’t be expected to
give up access to the only toilet they can access for other groups.

I have a disabled relative too, in particular a teenage niece who is a wheelchair user and severe learning disabilities and so needs assistance to use the toilet and, on occasion, be changed if she has soiled herself.

When I soil myself I also need assistance to be changed because of my disabilities. It's hugely humiliating and I don't always have someone to support me when this happens. It shouldn't happen because there should be adequate facilities for me to use before it gets past the point of urgency. When the facilities are left for the right people it's more likely that those who need it will get to use them in a timely manner and mitigate accidents.

I don’t take her out so much now but pre children I did frequently.

Its hard to tell from your post if she no longer gets out at all as frequently or if someone else has taken over and she still gets out but if she can't get out more frequently then surely you can understand how isolating having a disability can be, especially if you have had multiple instances of soiling and no immediate support because of barriers to accessing disability accessible facilities.

My views are not formed from a lack of experience of disability and the challenges being disabled poses.

Its a tale. How can you have those experiences and still think that you and your 2 non-disabled children could trump the needs of your neice or those like her? If they were all in a line outside the facilities who would you let in first?

Again, it’s a balance of needs.

Right. I get it. Some cubicles are small. Some. But you have the privilege of being able to go and locate facilities that can accomodate you and your 2 children. If your kids are young you can use a travel potty if they have urgency issues. You can stand outside a cubicle while they both go in together. Many facilities have a larger cubicle within their main toilet facilities separate from the accessible disabled toilets. If one establishment doesn't have this there will be one nearby that does in most places unless you live in the outer hebrides. Whatever the area there will be a solution that means you can toilet your children safely.

You are mixing your convenience with our necessity. It's convenient because you're guaranteed to keep your children in one space in these toilets, but it's necessary for those services to be there because us disabled can't access the other facilities available with ease or at all.

This reminds me so much of the threads about mums bringing their 8+ year old boys into female changing rooms and saying, so what if it means girls can’t use them? My child’s safety is the only thing that should matter.

They, too, should campaign for space that fits their own needs. But they don’t, because the pain is temporary and they can just use space that’s meant for someone else. Bonus points if they argue that it’s somehow also for them when it isn’t.

Some people are just inherently selfish and only care about their own circumstances. No amount of signage will change that. They don’t care.

Not disagreeing generally with the idea disabled prime have priority, but where else can you take the baby if it's the only baby change?

@fitzwilliamdarcy thank you, this is how I should have worded it without letting myself get het up and angry!

Anger is a perfectly acceptable response! It’s infuriating to me too.

Not necessarily only women in the toilet though (depending on your definition of 'woman').