To dislike male cleaners in female public toilets?

[GarliceGran]

I travel a lot with work, mostly via train. For some bizarre reason, a huge amount of train stations have male cleaners for the female toilets. Worse yet, these men are often doing non-urgent cleaning, such as washing mirrors etc.

This makes me very uncomfortable. If I’m not desperate, I’ll often just walk out.

AIBU?

Whenever I’ve come across this there’s usually a notice to warn you. No problem about it.

You don’t need to ‘go around harming men’. The definition of misandry is:

dislike of, contempt for, or ingrainedprejudice against men (i.e. the male sex).

Not wanting someone to do their job based solely on their sex is a clear example of this.

Quite!

You are way over thinking this

I know what the definition is. My point is that even if the comments were based in 'misandry', (which caution and discomfort is not, but that's by the by) no man is going to be harmed regardless. No one has suggested a campaign to get male cleaners sacked, have they? All some people are saying is it makes them uncomfortable. Which doesn't have the slightest impact on the men, so no need for you to get upset by it on their behalf.

I fear you may be underthinking it

Precisely!

Unless he's following you into the cubicle with his mop there's really no issue at all.

Many women feel the presence of a man in a space where they might be alone, especially a single sex space, is inherently threatening, regardless of what the man is doing.

I've thought about it very carefully and explained to you precisely why it's much easier for a man who wishes to assault a woman to simply walk into a women's toilet under the shield of identifying as woman, than it would be for him to get a job as a cleaner. Much easier and much less risk of apprehension. Which is the question you asked.

It would be fairly easy for a man to walk a toilet under the guise of being a cleaner wouldn’t it? All you need is a mop and a bucket and a sign.

Of course. Not as easy as simply walking in and saying you're a woman, no props required though, would it? Plus you didn't say pretend to be a cleaner. You said get a job as a cleaner and that would be easier than pretending to be a woman, which is not in any way true.

It’s worse with female cleaners in male toilets to be fair, there’s usually far more urinals than enclosed toilets, never sure whose more embarrassed

Presumably you will be in a cubicle, and unless you piss like a 🐎, why would you worry?

To all the people saying it doesn't bother them, are you then bothered by trans women in the women's loos?

We’re talking about potential risk to women around having male-bodied people allowed in female-only spaces though, aren’t we? I was noting that the replies in this thread seem to differ a lot from usual mumsnet replies re. allowing people identifying as women in women’s toilets. So do responders believe that the risk of someone identifying as a woman in order to gain access to a female-only space is unacceptable, but the risk of someone identifying as a cleaner to get access to female-only spaces is acceptable?

My message above was a reply to this btw.

Not sure why cleaning mirrors is non essential? I’ve been surprised by a sneeze, for example, over the years and splattered the mirror. If there’s one thing Covid should have taught us, it’s that clean surfaces are important.

There is always a sign where I live, and cleaners will step out if you need to use the loo and can't wait.

I don't expect any place to hire two people for a job when there is only enough work for one.

The bizarre reason you refer is presumably women didn’t want the jobs? How else do you want to find, magic?

Yeah, this. I'm GC but I don't understand why trans women are unacceptable in this scenario and ordinary men are not.

As long as there is a notice to indicate cleaners may be male or female, like some others no issue and why shouldn't a man do this job?

In that case why are one subset of men (trans women) banned but another subset (male workers) allowed?

You're not unreasonable to feel how you feel, not everyone is comfortable with male cleaners in the ladies. But overall, I don't think it's practical or reasonable to expect only female cleaners in the ladies. I guess you just have to work around it when you encounter it, and that's fair enough in my opinion.

I expect opinions will differ. However, in my view, ideally women's toilets would be cleaned by female cleaners and mens by male cleaners and this should be the default policy for cleaning companies.
However, I recognise that this may not be possible, and if its a choice between a male cleaner and an unhygienic toilet, then the least harm for women using the space snd the preferred iption, may well be a male cleaner. Which, as you point out, carries some risk. The sight of the man may distress women. The cleaner may be a sexual predator. Men may carry around buckets mops and signs to pretend to be cleaners.
We then put in processes to mitigate the risk. A sign warning women so they will not be taken by surprise. The ability for women to report official cleaners for impropriety and there being a record of who that person is. Official cleaners having ID rather than just a mop.
With these mitigations the risk from a male cleaner reduces to a level many consider acceptable. And what risk there remains is arguably balanced by the benefit to women of a clean toilet.
Now compare this with any man who says he is a woman being permitted to enter the women's toilets, a situation that is the unavoidable result of allowing those who self ID as women to enter. What are the mitigations that take that from very high risk to women, because there is nothing at all to prevent any man entering, to a level of risk that would be acceptable?
What is the benefit to women that acts as balance to the risk?