Thread 2: Why can't people respect the rules around toilets!?!?

[Underbudget]

Darn it the thread filled and I wanted to ask @tandora a question. Is this within site rules to start another to do this as I don't seem to be able to tag her? Feel free to report/delete if it is.

Previous thread here: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5372111-why-cant-people-respect-the-rules-around-toilets?page=1

'Tandora · Today 07:51

Eh? Mental health is everyone’s concern that’s why we have a health system.

No one’s rights come “first”- we need to find solutions that respect everyone’s rights.

There is no “female suffering” involved in respecting and including trans people. It will have virtually no impact on your life whatsoever.'

I wondered @Tandora if you'd read my post earlier on that thread, where in my head, children's rights come first? As the basic premise of child protection?

My post (in response to a different poster) if you missed it, was this:

Underbudget · Today 00:51

Slow to reply and expect thread has moved on, but surely you can empathise with a girl victim of csa feeling terrifed at finding themselves alone with a very male bodied person in a public loo between them and the door? Why does that child's feelings mean less than the adult males?
And what if that particular male bodied person WAS a rapist? That people saw entering from the outside but didn't want to "offend" by challenging them. And a child was born from a child as a result?
Doesn't a child's right to safety and protection come before ANY adult's feelings? Especially when a child can be born from rape as a result? As could ONLY happen to a female?
Fellow survivor of CSA here so I can understand you may have issues in thinking around this. I have spent years in therapy due to being overtrusting because my boundaries were fucked.'

I genuinely want to be in a place where all rights are respected, but I can't personally process this risk in any way that makes sense to me. I simply cannot agree with or process that allowing a male bodied person, unsupervised access to a child victim of CSA in a vulnerable space, whether a real or a perceived risk, does not harm that child. As a male, they are not being discriminated against on the basis of their sex, as ALL males are excluded from that situation, rightfully so. No right minded person believes all males are rapists, just as and no right minded person believes all transwomen are. But some of both ARE and that's a fact. I accept that a trans person may feel excluded from having their social transition recognised by not being allowed in the single sex spaces of the gender of their choosing, but equally, a girl in that situation also feels distressed. Why does that adults discomfort trump the discomfort felt by the child? A trans person deserves somewhere safe to go to the loo, but that's not in the women's loos. If that protects just one single child from reliving horrific trauma or worse, then that's what has to happen.

I would truly like to understand your view, ideally in a way that acknowledges the trauma of a child in this situation.

you claim that there is no such thing as a "female lived experience" beyond simple 'knowledge of the body'.

No I don't. I say the female lived experience encompasses the multitude of experiences that are coloured or informed by being lived from within the female body.

That is very different thing. It is far more than just the knowledge of the body, but nevertheless it requires the female body because it includes within it both the physical experiences of the body and the knowledge of the body and all the consequences that come with that knowledge.

As an analogy, the lived experience of swimming is as varied as the individual swimmers, but it always includes within it experiencing the physical act of propelling the body in water, the feel of water, the awareness of ensuring you breath air not water to avoid drowning and so on which make it fundamentally different to all the lived experiences of running.

You also assume that 'knowledge of the body' itself directly follows from chromosomes or genitals. it doesn't.

Again, no I don't.

What I said was "knowledge that ones body is considered male"

I was very careful in how I worded this. I said specifically "ones body is considered male" because I am not assuming any inner identification with that body or that label, only the simple knowledge, formed as one comes to self- and social- awareness in infancy and early childhood, that ones body is generally classified by others as male.

.........that there may be limited circumstances where services can be exclusively reserved for (non trans) women.

Eh? "Non - transwomen" simply means women, surely? And there are a great many more women than there are transwomen. So most services should be reserved for women, as they greatly outnumber the men who say they're women.

However, calling a transwoman 'male', even a subset of 'male', is offensive, as it contradicts their lived experience and triggers profound feelings of dysphoria, rejection, disassociation, disorientation, distress etc.

Oh, I doubt this, very much.
What do you mean by their "lived experience", anyway?

And to be 100% crystal clear, because this is far from my first rodeo, I referred to male lived experience in my first post because that was the subject of the post I replied to.

I could have written every word of the first paragraph about the female lived experience instead and it would be equally as true.

Male and female lived experiences are different because the different bodies lead to different physical and social experiences and outcomes, not because there are ways of experiencing being either male or female that are not consequences of ones embodied existence as one physical sex or the other.

I’ve been following some of the recent legal developments around sex and gender definitions particularly since the Supreme Court’s ruling in For Women Scotland and I’m still not entirely sure how it’s meant to play out on the ground in everyday life, especially in relation to things like toilets, changing rooms, and other single-sex spaces.
The ruling clarified that, at least for the purposes of the Equality Act, “woman” can mean biological sex. But despite that, it seems like we’re still in quite a grey area when it comes to what this actually means in practice. A good example is the case involving Sex Matters and the City of London Corporation over the Hampstead Ladies’ Pond a female-only space. Sex Matters is arguing that allowing trans women in goes against the Equality Act post-ruling. Meanwhile, the Corporation is saying it’s not really a “single-sex” space because trans women have always been allowed in under their policy, and they plan to keep it that way.
So we’ve got this situation where, legally, some things might have changed or at least been clarified but practically, a lot of organisations are still using their own policies based on gender identity. It’s a bit of a patchwork right now, and until we get a binding court ruling that sets precedent in a real-world example (e.g. a gym, public toilet, school changing room), I don’t think we’re going to get full clarity.
I know people have very strong views about this topic on both sides but realistically, we're not at a point yet where there’s a clear-cut answer for every situation. We can talk about “what the law says” all we like, but the courts are still interpreting how that law applies to actual services and spaces, and different bodies are handling it in very different ways in the meantime.
I’m genuinely curious if others think we’re heading towards a more consistent approach or if this legal and policy limbo is just something we’ll be stuck with for the foreseeable future?

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/women-only-doesnt-mean-single-sex-says-corporation-of-london/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Why is it completely unenforceable? I’m trying to understand but is the suggestion that transwomen would know that legally they shouldn’t be in women’s toilets but would go in anyway?
Is it just toilets that you think shouldn’t be sex segregated or would you include changing rooms too?

It’s a bit of a patchwork right now, and until we get a binding court ruling that sets precedent in a real-world example

The supreme court ruling is binding. It binds every court and tribunal in the country.

When people say it’s “completely unenforceable,” they usually mean that in practical terms, most public toilets and changing rooms don’t have staff monitoring who goes in, and there’s no obvious or dignified way to check someone’s sex. In reality, many trans women have been using women’s toilets for years without incident, and trying to stop that in practice could easily lead to mistaken confrontations, humiliation, or even harm for both trans people and cis people wrongly challenged.
On the point about changing rooms: these are definitely more sensitive, and the law does allow for single-sex spaces to exclude trans people in some circumstances but only if it’s a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, like ensuring privacy or safety. That means the decision has to be considered carefully and justified based on the setting, not applied as a blanket rule.
The recent Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland case clarified that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, "sex" refers to biological sex not gender identity. But even with that clarification, there’s still a lot of debate about how this applies in practice, especially when it comes to proportionality. Some argue that excluding all trans women from all female spaces wouldn’t meet that test and could be discriminatory, while others feel that biological sex should be the sole factor. It’s not fully settled, and we’ll likely see more legal challenges on this over time.
It’s also worth noting that not all venues are the same. Some, particularly LGBTQ+ spaces such as nightclubs marketed to trans clients or places that identify as inclusive, will openly welcome trans women into women’s facilities. Others may make different decisions depending on their clientele, setting, or the services they provide.
So it’s not necessarily about saying “trans women should always” or “should never” be in a given space it’s about recognising that the law already allows for some flexibility, but that enforcement or exclusion must be justified and not based on blanket assumptions.
It’s a tough area to navigate, and I get why people feel strongly. But in practice, it’s often about balancing dignity, safety, and legality in each particular context.

You're absolutely right the Supreme Court ruling is binding on all lower courts and tribunals, and it has indeed clarified that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, “sex” means biological sex.
What I probably should have said is that while the legal definition is now settled, how that definition plays out in practical, everyday scenarios like access to toilets, changing rooms, or single-sex services still hasn’t been fully tested in real-world fact-specific tribunal or court decisions.
The Supreme Court didn’t rule on toilets or changing rooms directly, just the legal interpretation of “sex.” So while the legal groundwork is there, many organisations are still navigating what counts as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim when it comes to applying that definition and that’s where there's still some uncertainty. That part will likely be refined through future cases that apply the principle to particular circumstances.
So yes — the Supreme Court's judgment sets the legal standard, but how that standard is applied in messy, real-life examples is still evolving.

Also, legally it's not illegal (as in criminal law, where the police get involved) for a trans woman to enter the female bathrooms) so enforcing it in locations such as supermarkets can eb difficult, and unrealistic.

To be clear to everyone before I get bashed for posting, I respect everyone's rights i'm just trying to clarify to the best of my knowledge the issues people are facing with this.

Also, realistically, whatever the outcome of the Hampstead Ladies’ Pond case at this stage, it’s highly likely to be appealed and progress to the High Court especially given how significant the legal questions are. That means the decision at the current level (I believe it’s starting in the County Court) won’t be the final word and is only relevant to that individual case as neither side will back down.
What will actually shape wider policy and set binding precedent for similar situations like whether trans women can lawfully access women’s changing rooms or toilets under the Equality Act is what the High Court eventually rules. That’s when we’ll start to get legally consistent answers that apply across the board.
So while this current case is interesting and important, it’s really just the beginning of a longer legal process.

@coffeeandmycats in the case of the Hampstead Ponds, they can try and say it’s a mixed space, women’s and transwomen. They then have to explain why they are keeping the other men out- discrimination. They also have to make the third pond mixed as well, so they don’t discriminate against women. So they have 3 mixed sex ponds

That would be a bit of a scorched earth policy, but they may choose it. It’s to no one’s benefit though. Allowing a women only pond seems sensible to me- but we’ll have to see.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing I'm just showing both sides of the argument for those who asked.

Some argue that excluding all trans women from all female spaces wouldn’t meet that test and could be discriminatory, while others feel that biological sex should be the sole factor. It’s not fully settled, and we’ll likely see more legal challenges on this over time.

No for single sex spaces there has to be a legitimate aim for separating them by sex. Segregating spaces where people will be in a state of undress by sex will always be a legitimate aim.

If spaces are separated by sex then that is on the basis of biological sex.

With toilets your choice is use the single sex exemptions and have separate male and female toilets or don't use the SSE and have mixed sex toilets. You could also have single user unisex toilets. There is no option for female and males who identify as women only toilets.

And you may be required by other legislation to provide single sex toilets eg workplaces and schools

That men who identify as women are not female fir the purposes of the Equality Act was the whole point of FWS case

I completely understand where you’re coming from, and you're right that the For Women Scotland (FWS) case clarified that, legally, "sex" in the Equality Act means biological sex. That’s now the binding interpretation, and yes, it absolutely strengthens the legal basis for single-sex spaces to exclude trans women in some contexts especially where a legitimate aim can be clearly demonstrated, like in changing rooms or communal areas where people are undressed.
I wasn’t disputing that.
What I was trying to do earlier was just explain the two sides of the argument the current legal framework and how it’s still being debated in practice, especially around toilets. While the law is clearer post-FWS, the application in real-world settings like how and when exclusions are justified is still evolving. Many organisations are still figuring out what’s lawful and workable on the ground, especially where policies have been inclusive for years.
And you're also right that some settings (e.g. schools, workplaces) are legally required to provide single-sex toilets but even there, some institutions also provide unisex or accessible alternatives. It’s a patchwork right now, and how far exclusions go in practice is still something we’re likely to see tested further in court.
So I wasn’t arguing for one position over another just acknowledging that it’s a legally and socially live issue.

No, when they say "it's unenforceable" they mean they don't like it so aren't prepared to consider all the workable solutions, despite single sex provision being very much and accepted and broadly adhered to for hundreds of years, because they aren't prepared to deal with the repercussions of saying an entirely legal and reasonable "No" to trans people.

The closest parallel is the way some shops are now telling staff just to ignore shoplifting despite the law because the risk and hassle that comes with confronting and trying to prevent shoplifting isn't worth it.

No one thinks the shoplifters are in the right, they are just too scared to do anything about them. They have lost faith in the ability of the legal system and social contract.

Heartbreaking.

strengthens the legal basis for single-sex spaces to exclude trans women in some contexts especially where a legitimate aim can be clearly demonstrated, like in changing rooms or communal areas where people are undressed.

It's not about whether transwomen can be excluded from female spaces It's whether men can be excluded from female spaces. That's all men including transwomen. For the Equality Act transwomen are men.

Single sex toilets worked perfectly well for years. Everyone knew that only bad’uns would invade them. There would have been short shrift for anyone caught where they shouldn’t be.

It would be a shame if people began to feel the need or vigilante type behaviour- but what else is there if transwomen won’t observe single sex toilets and the authorities aren’t prepared to enforce it?

Vigilantism has no place in this discussion, full stop. No matter how strongly someone feels about single-sex spaces, it is never appropriate to take the law into your own hands. Confronting, challenging, or policing individuals in toilets based on how they look or what you assume about their sex is not only dangerous and illegal, but also opens the door to serious harm, including to women who are gender non-conforming, have short hair, or simply don’t “look right” to someone else.
This isn’t about whether someone agrees or disagrees with trans access it’s about basic safety and the rule of law. If someone believes a policy is being wrongly applied, the answer is to raise it through proper legal and organisational channels, not to encourage a climate of fear or potential harassment.
“Short shrift” and “vigilante behaviour” are not solutions they’re symptoms of a society failing to uphold lawful, respectful discourse. We need to protect everyone’s dignity and safety, including those we may disagree with.

I think it has the potential to lead to a risky experiment. I would like to see much more research on safety in toilets and changing rooms. It beggars belief that there are figures that show over 1 child a day gets raped per school day inside a U.K. school premises, yet there are no studies as to where these are happening. Surely looking at a safer environment is an obvious way of reducing VAWG? I believe (which seems to be backed up by individual’s stories) most of these must be happening in private spaces like private toilets and cupboards.

What does need to happen is there to be an emphasis on collecting data and properly analysing it. We need to know what’s happening in different designs.

I have been told there’s no centralised database on sexual crimes in toilets. I am relying on local newspapers, foi from local police forces for much of my database.

I am trying to counteract the tidal wave of people who seem to think adding a private unisex toilet without much thought as to where/why is a good compromise. These designs have never been safety tested like this.

I am concerned particularly for girls using the extra ‘gender neutral’ toilets they campaign for. Because when they get them, my evidence suggests they don’t use them because they are fearful of male behaviour around them or worse, they continue to use them as they feel obliged to and this carries health and safety risks. Again, no one is researching these designs. I have seen a pattern: they become private cubicles for sex and drugs and can get grotty very quickly. They need more supervision for them to work. Many schools have ended up restricting access to private cubicles.

Very few people actually seem to like unisex toilets. The most vocal supporters are men, including the ones designing them. Certain manufacturers promote them as you need more of everything.

Be careful what you wish for is what I am trying to emphasise - there’s a lot at stake. And it affects anyone at their most vulnerable.

I want everyone to be safe. This needs careful planning.

Re pubs and nightclubs: Private cubicles, especially larger mixed sex ones are really not a good idea. The excitement of having a unwitnessed place to do drugs or have sex is also the place to overdose or be abused. Google ‘toilet assault’ or ‘toilet death’ in your nearest city newspaper. Victims of assaults are young women, boys and girls.

When my workplace introduced mainly gender neutral student toilets, the female staff toilets were stowed out with female students, because they didn’t want to use the unisex bathrooms! Previously staff would have turfed them out (because the staff loos were always nicer and a private space students shouldn’t be in) but it kind of became unwritten that we all just got on with it because no woman wanted to use the unisex toilets.

For balance, male lecturers at my place also hate the gender neutral toilets. I teach a few (female-to-male) trans students who like the fact there are free period products in them which there wouldn’t be in a gents’ toilet - but also think there should be a choice of using single sex or mixed sex facilities.

Thank you. It’s really interesting your students like the ‘gender neutral’ toilets. Can I ask what the design is? Do they lead straight onto a public area and are they enclosed private, rooms with sinks in them? Are we talking about college/uni age students? Do the period products get damaged by men in the toilets? Do men use them as much or is there an unspoken understanding it is for this group? Are they open to the public too?
Always interested in learning about different scenarios.

I feel a lot of students like gender nwutral stuff because generally the younger generation believe twaw as that it what they wrre taught in school (I'm not comenting on if they are or are not but i think the point stands)

No - they really don’t like them! The only ones who do are trans people, who also think there should be single sex toilets.

They are undergraduate age - although also mature students of course - and staff have to use these toilets too. The toilets themselves open off a narrow corridor entered by an open doorway (from main corridors) and are very small. Eg on a winter’s day with a big coat, laptop bag, and a handbag I would struggle space-wise (I am female and a UK size 10/12, so not a huge person.) Each toilet has a small sink, hand dryer, and sanitary bin - I actually complained that they didn’t have hooks for hanging coats/bags (because the floors are covered in pee) and they now have those. Doors are floor to ceiling so not safe if a person collapses or worse. Period products are in baskets on a shelf in the toilet corridor.

Members of the public use the toilets if they are a visitor to the building - you don’t need a pass to enter so I suppose in theory anyone could come in. I use the toilets in a nearby shopping centre or coffee shops rather than use them so I can’t imagine anyone choosing to pop in just for a gender neutral wee!

It’s interesting because when you ask pupils/students to be honest, in my research they say they are smellier, dirtier and there’s lot that going on that makes them uncomfortable. This is what is going to be the problem with legislation when there’s so little analysis and data to formulate a plan.

I think building regs (which obviously have been formulated over decades through lots of experience) has got it right with single sex toilets being the default and mixed sex toilets (which have to be private, enclosed, sound resistant and a door you can override the lock from the outside) being for places that only have room for one toilet or after the correct single sex allocation has been allotted. BUT the mixed sex private universal toilet has to be recognised as a more dangerous design especially in comparison to a single sex toilet with door gaps. In needs to be closely supervised and checked often.

Quote from an American school: ‘The gender-neutral bathrooms are both horrible and amazing. I am so glad we have them, but they are disgusting, mostly because of the way students treat them. The issue mainly comes from how small and how few they are, and it’s not uncommon that the four small bathrooms are filled with sex, drugs or vaping. We need to address these problems, or the gender-neutral bathrooms will continue to be the most disgusting in the school.…I have used the other four gender-neutral bathrooms, so I know which to use and why.
I consider everything in the third floor bathroom a biohazard. Almost every time I make the mistake of going in, I leave trying to purge my mind of the horrors I just witnessed. Whether it is people having sex, poop smeared on the walls, or the toilet being clogged with an entire roll of toilet paper, horrible things have happened in that bathroom.’

The pupil’s solution: ‘converting a bathroom on the other side of each floor into a gender-neutral bathroom. The sex and vaping that is currently concentrated in just four gender neutral bathrooms would be spread between six bathrooms instead.’

I do not agree with increasing the number of locations! This pupil does a wonderful job of analysing the problems and the teachers responses. Everything that the teachers try to do to stop bad things happening - cctv (we’re being watched), standing outside the toilet (that isn’t fair to those who aren’t ‘out’ yet) and putting drug prevention posters up (that’s a waste of time they get ruined) are typical arguments. The teachers are having to do extra supervision just for one toilet on each floor, to stop the toilets being out of order as the toilets get so badly treated. The teachers reject the idea of more toilets as they would lose a classroom with the amount of space lots more gender neutral toilet need and the extra supervision needed. You can sense everyone’s frustration. And actually there’s some serious safeguarding fails going on.

The reason this is important as it is the same design guidelines the DfE had for secondary schools in their latest design brief. They have stated there should be a private toilet ‘identified as gender neutral’ on each floor. I have done a lot of research on schools as they have had so many different designs recently, and believe the problems they have faced are the ones that venues and workplaces will face too.