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?

No, I'm generally not bothered by trans women using public loos. The vast majority are just ordinary people, there are some weirdos and creeps, of course (and those guys are generally just perverts, I wouldn't even call them trans). It does help that I have known some genuine transwomen since the 90s, so I don't have that fear.

I am always on high alert for anyone behaving oddly around public loos, and it's junkies (man or woman) that really scare me tbh. I have seen people get atracked. If there's a male toilet attendant about I actually find that reassuring.

Would you rather the toilets were just dirty, then?

Different level of risk, and one risk is balanced by a benefit.
Happy to get behind any campaign for female only cleaners in women's toilets though if other women feel the risk is unacceptable.
Unfortunately the motivation for introducing male cleaners into the debate is rarely to argue toilets would be safer without them. Rather to argue that their presence means we might as well let all men who want to go in do so. When this inevitably rears its head, I think its pertinent to drawer a distinction between the different levels of risk and benefit.

I can't speak for everyone of course, but personally I'm not bothered by anyone in loos as long as they're minding their own business.

I am bothered by people who are drunk and lairy, creepy, hassling others etc.

I understand why single sex spaces are preferred by many and do generally think that should be the aim.

I also understand that reality doesn't always allow for a purely single sex space with no blurred lines. I spent many years as a cleaner and cleaned mens loos and changing rooms, dorms / accommodation etc so I have direct personal experience of this from both sides.

How much do the mitigations you listed re having male cleaners actually lower the risk though? Anyone can make a sign, and often the sign says ‘these toilets may be cleaned by male cleaners’ rather than ‘a male cleaner is currently working in here’ - what’s the difference between that and saying ‘these toilets may be used by anyone identifying as a woman’? Any person can be reported to the police for misconduct/assault - whether they are identifying as a woman or a cleaner, it doesn’t mitigate the risk of it happening. And how does me asking to see a cleaner’s ID lower the risk of them assaulting me? It sounds to me like you’re saying ‘it’s worth taking this risk to make sure the toilets are clean’. If there’s a real risk from allowing male-bodied people in female-only spaces then I wouldn’t want to risk my safety for a slightly cleaner toilet, would you?

I mean, it's obviously not the same thing at all.

Can you explain why

What makes you uncomfortable about them being there? Do you perceive yourself to be more at risk from these male cleaners than men in other contexts?

Its entirely valid for you to feel the risk from male cleaners is too high. I respect that and would happily support a campaign for female only cleaners.
I'm simply trying to answer your question as to why people see male cleaners as different from men who identify as women accessing women's toilets.
There is nothing women can do to completely remove our risk of assault from men. So all we can do is risk assess different situations and decide whether the risk is acceptable to us when balanced by the benefits and the mitigations.
For example, we could decide a clean toilet wasn't worth the risk of a male cleaner. But would likely decide our life was worth the risk from a male paramedic if we needed emergency care whilst in the women's toilet.
When it comes to allowing males to access the women's toilets for no other reason that their own desire to do so, there is no mitigation or benefit that makes that risk acceptable, so is viewed differently.
Do you know of any benefits to women of allowing men who ID as women into the ladies, or ways that we could remove the risk of any man with ill intent accessing the toilet under this guise, that I've overlooked?

They used to put a sign up and try to be quick. Nowadays they just send men in willy nilly since they decide women who want same sex spaces are evil. It's annoying.

Well the world doesn't revolve around you im afraid, what if the next person doesn't want them to be doing the non urgent work and the next ,when would it get done?

I have never seen a male cleaner in or around women's toilets where there hasn't been a sign indicating that possibility.

Because a male cleaner in a female space will have signage up to inform people of his presence.

Because a male cleaner will not actually be using the facilities.

Because a male cleaner will be known to the business operating the facilities and so contactable/traceable.

I mean, i can keep going.

We're repeatedly told that there's no lengths men won't go to to access women, including assuming a trans identity.

So surely any man off the street could put on a high vis, carry around some spray and a cloth, tape a piece of paper to the door saying "male cleaner in attendance", and go in. In a big busy place it could be a good while before he was rumbled.

I'd argue the above is easier and requires significantly less commitment than assuming a trans identity.

What work is required to assume a trans identity? I was under the impression all that was required was to state one was the opposite sex? As far as I'm aware, there are no requirements to do with modifying appearance or behaviour. Or indeed any requirements to be consistent. Swapping from 'boy mode' to 'girl mode' at will is acceptable. A simple statement that you 'are' the opposite sex suffices. Something any man is able to do merely by saying "I identify as a woman".

I'm getting so tired of seeing nonsense like this on Mumsnet! Going by the name of the site, I'm guessing that most of the people on here have had at least a passing acquaintance with a man, and most of them aren't that scary. The cleaners have just got a job to do. I doubt they're taking much notice of random women coming in for a pee. Plus, there's generally a sign warning you 🙄

I'd argue that you are being a bit ridiculous now.

YANBU. Women should do all the cleaning and caring work, not men.
Men doing it must be dodgy for wanting to go anywhere near women in the first place.
Best we stick to the good old traditional "natural order" of women if they do any work it should be in the home or the cleaning/caring roles. Men stick to their "roles."
Disclaimer sarcasm
Just I've seen 3 "keep men out of teaching/caring for young children roles" and now "keep them away from cleaning toilets" within nearly as many days.
There's definitely something going on with MN nowadays.
I've been seeing it for a while, but it's more overt now - more of a push to get women and men back into traditional roles/ a right conservative push.

I didn't want to be alone with a man I didn't know on my own

How do you manage ordinary daily life without ever being alone with a man you don't know? Do you go around with a chaperone all the time or what? Do you have to have someone take a day off work and come round to supervise if you have a man doing work on your house? What about things like a lift in a hotel or an office?

I can think of five occasions I've been alone with a man I don't know this week already, and that's just off the top of my head.

Just I've seen 3 "keep men out of teaching/caring for young children roles" and now "keep them away from cleaning toilets" within nearly as many days.
There's definitely something going on with MN nowadays.
I've been seeing it for a while, but it's more overt now - more of a push to get women and men back into traditional roles/ a right conservative push.

Agreed.

Don't be silly.

This doesn't bother me at all.

That's ridiculous. Those guys are doing a very difficult and necessary job, do you really think they're there to just put you in your place? You're crazy.

Just let them get on with it and show cleaners (whether they are men or women) some respect for the important job they are doing.

Some trans identified men have an extremely feminine persona, are exclusively attracted to men, and would pose no risk to women at all. I'm not saying that they are the only trans women to go to women's loos, but they are far less likely to be a threat to women than a random male toilet cleaner. I am GC but I don't understand why people are ok with a cleaner being male but not a service user. I actually don't understand why the supreme court ruling didn't put an end to male attendants in women' loos.

.

You’ve probably hit the nail on the head here, to be fair. I think for me, in terms of offsetting any risk of women feeling uncomfortable and of men with ill intent accessing the space, I’d probably put the benefit of allowing another oppressed group (trans women) to access women’s toilets so that they can also feel safe above ‘having slightly cleaner toilets’, even though that’s not a group I’m actually a part of (as a cis woman) and so it has no direct benefit for me, and a clean toilet would have a slight personal benefit.