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?

I'd imagine the wording may be more along the lines of "These toilets are currently being cleaned and there may be a male or female cleaner in attendance". I've seen more of this type of wording than wording explicitly stating there is a man in the toilet. The same signs are used for men's toilets that could be being cleaned by a woman, so its easier than faffing with a variety of different signs.

I think this would be obfuscating and could end up being problematic.

How can someone who cannot understand the person in front of them cleaning is male because they might not detect the body cues give fully informed consent with a sign such as that? If they walked in and saw someone they perceived as male they could leave if they felt they could not use the space with the male person present. It is not fully informed consent if a person mistakes a male person as a female person and that male person’s presence is not clearly disclosed.

If the signage is not clear that the person is male then this could become a case to be resolved legally.

Yes, i agree in principle, but in practice, under employment law, consideration will need to be given to the possibility a trans employee could claim they were humiliated by being forced to carry a sign 'outing' them as a man when there was an alternative.
I think the wording I've given (and seen used) may well be considered adequate to warn women not to be alarmed should they see a male person, TI or otherwise, cleaning the toilet, and to afford her the option of avoiding the facilty at that time; while also fulfilling the duty of care to 'protect the dignity' of the trans employee.

I suspect it would fail in a legal challenge, myself. Because it does not observe consent for the users at all. If this is an issue for the employee, the employer needs to make alternative arrangements so that employee is not exposed to a situation such as that.

You cannot remove the consent for female people. I think there would be considerable ethical boundaries crossed if a business made consent contingent on someone having to identify whether a person is male or female by observation.

That’s against self id, where any man can enter a woman’s space. Cleaners are employed, It’s not in their interest to commit sex based crimes on the job.

I'm not sure. Because unless we force people to wear badges declaring their sex, or insist on 'sex signifying' presentation at all times, there will always be a risk we may fail to recognise a person's sex, and engage with them believing them to be the opposite sex, thereby consenting to engage on false pretences. This will be very rare, but you raised the possibility.
We have no choice but to accept this risk if we want to retain the freedom to visually appear as we choose; and should not be an issue, provided we are aware we are in a mixed sex space and the people we're encountering could be of either sex, regardless of appearance.
With regards to the toilets, the wording of 'my' sign tells women that due to cleaning, the single sex space temporarily and for the specific function of cleaning, may be open to members of the opposite sex, for the express purpose of their work.
Women may then choose to wait until the cleaning is completed and the space reverts to guaranteed single sex if they choose.
There is of course a risk a woman will decide to go in and check, see a TIM and believe he's a woman and use the space. But I don't see that as any different from a woman who doesn't want to sit squashed up against a man on a bus sitting next to a TIM because she mistakes him for a woman. Because neither space guarantees to be single sex at that time.

“Because unless we force people to wear badges declaring their sex, or insist on 'sex signifying' presentation at all times, there will always be a risk we may fail to recognise a person's sex, and engage with them believing them to be the opposite sex, thereby consenting to engage on false pretences”

Not really. It is up to the employer to ensure that they don’t place a male person who declares they are female in a position that negates consent in a female single sex situation.

If it is not a situation where sex is important to decisions being made, it should not matter. So I think that this point is not really a consideration for these situations at all.

And if a male person cannot respect their employer’s policies etc and their actions put their employer in such a position where the employer unknowingly places female people in this position, then that’s a whole other issue again.

“With regards to the toilets, the wording of 'my' sign tells women that due to cleaning, the single sex space temporarily and for the specific function of cleaning, may be open to members of the opposite sex, for the express purpose of their work.”

I think it can be argued that this is not enough.

And I also can think of many people who will not be able to distinguish who is male and who is female. As I said, the onus is not on women or girls to have to judge someone’s sex by their appearance in a female single sex provision. The onus is fully on both the male person to not be there or the employer to be very specific about a male employee accessing the space.

There is a specific clause in humans rights that says that when safety is important it restricts the right of ‘privacy’ so that is no longer the priority.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life

A person can dress however the fuck they want, what they should not expect do is put themselves in a situation where they negate consent around single sex spaces.

if her anxiety is stopping her from using the toilet why is using a disabled toilet an issue with you...what constitutes a disability to you ??

I'm not being awkward, but I genuinely can't see why it's not enough to have a generic sign for use by employees of both sexes that warn the space may temporaily be occupied by a person of the opposite sex for cleaning purposes. People would then be able to enter with informed consent, knowing they may encounter someone of the opposite sex.
Given the duty upon employers to prevent discrimination against people with the PC of gender reassignment and the need to protect their privacy where possible, deliberately requiring a TIM to carry a 'man here' sign I think could be up for challenge. Let's face it, the person absolutely would challenge it, and if the aim of the sign can be achieved without this, they could win.
I'm not arguing the principle with you, I'm considering the real world ramifications as these are issues I will be encountering and its useful to test my thinking.

I thought MNetters could only use their own toilet at home having read recent threads. They seem to be able to go away for up to 6 months and not use any toilets until they get home.

YABU. If you ask them politely they will step out while you use the toilets. Cleaning has to be done and in train stations there really isn't an alternative non busy time to do the non urgent cleaning. Unless you would rather they closed the toilets altogether while they clean?

And as I said, the employer should not be putting that male person in the situation if that person doesn’t want to be ‘outed’.

I am not being awkward to. But your suggestion is simply not clear enough. Your example leaves a female user to have to make her risk assessment via observation. That is simply not good enough.

Is it good enough for Girl guides to have a sign up saying ‘this tent may have girls and boys’ when a female child is expected to decide whether to stay in it or not and leaving it to her to decide based on who looks female or not?

Is it good enough for a sports team to say ‘maybe our team has female or male players’ when the rule is that it is a female single sex team and then the female players have to decide if each player is male or female when in fact the expectation is that the club should have been honest in the first place and said up front there was a male playing so an informed decision could be made.

Your suggestion also is unfair to the male person who is transgender because it does then mean that they are judged on their passing ability.

Its never acceptable for organisations for women and girls such as GG or women's sports teams to allow males to join or participate. And no, of course it wouldn't be good enough to use 'there may be male participants' as a disclaimer, as this just means they are a mixed sex organisation.
However, the more appropriate comparison with a male cleaner in the womens toilets would be for GG to say 'there may be men present at camp in their role of forest rangers' or for women's sports teams to be advised that the coach driver may be a man.
I'm not proposing women and girls make a judgement on whether to use a facility based on whether a person they encounter working in that space 'looks like' a man. The decision on whether they wish to use the space, attend GG camp or travel to the away game comes at the point they are advised there will be a person temporarily present in a work capacity and that person may be a man.

No. I don’t agree that roles you suggest are comparable. They would be comparable to ‘there may be male people in this complex’.

Being in the toilet facility is directly in the female single sex space. So yes, it is like being a player.

Of course women and girls will enter and check who is cleaning in that space. It is unreasonable for them to not be expected to do so. They will enter to see if it is a male or a female maintenance person based on that sign. They have to use the toilet and why would they not check just in case they can still use that facility as planned.

Of course women and girls will enter and check who is cleaning in that space. It is unreasonable for them to not be expected to do so.

I suspect the vast majority of women and girls don't check this at all, to be honest. In all my years of using women's public loos I've never seen anyone paying particular attention to cleaning notices (or cleaners).

Presumably you wee within a cubicle, and mirrors have to be cleaned at some time (in a station, there is always steady traffic).

I think it is harder for men's toilets, where they wee in the open.

Many female people do use the public spaces as well for things they likely don’t want witnessed by a male person.

I think this is a bit different though. The man is in the women's toilets for a short period, for a specific reason, has presumably been reference checked and employed. He has no option but to do this or lose his job, it's essential. A women can chose to wait outside until he is finished if they are uncomfortable with this.

Which is a bit different to older (7+) non disabled (so can change independently) boys coming into girls changing rooms because their mums prefer this to them going in men's (which is my 'protected space' bugbear). This is an optional choice, not essential and there are other options available to them, including a shared gender changing space. But no, they have to bring then into the girls don't they. My DD10 who is going through puberty really doesn't need boys of same age seeing her coming out of shower in a towel, laughing at her when her bra or period products drops out of her bag etc. And the mums just stand there saying nothing which is unbelievable!

Excellent, another thread linked on X to convince people that Mumsnet is a refuge for batshit crazies.
They're TOILETS, not sacred shrines to womanhood. Like most people, I know a lot of women and not one of them cares to waste their life stressing over the gender of toilet cleaners.

Thank you. I'm just grateful for someone cleaning the loos; they mind their own buiness, get on with the job in hand and they move on. It's a non-issue.

Adjusting clothes can be done in a cubicle if you're coy. Anything intimate requiring a mirror can be done at home. I don't want to see someone inspecting the boil on their bum, or lancing their blackheads, either.

This had arisen in large part from the attempt to use the presence of male toilet cleaners to argue the toilet isn't a single sex space, and so therefore should be inclusive of TW.
Women who would never have given a thought to male toilet cleaners are being forced to consider them now by people using them to argue for the inclusion of TW in women's spaces.
People have a right to reflect on these arguments and respond without being called 'batshit'.

And yet, women often rinse out their shirts in the female toilets and use the dryers.

How wonderful for you that you have never had to do this.

I would question "often". But sure, I've had to spot-clean things in the loo from time to time. If I've been soaked (happens a lot as I cycle) I just stick myself under the dryer.

I have never seen a woman stripped-down in a public loo, I would say that would be extremely rare. If it did happen I'm sure a male cleaner would give her a moment - they are bound to get training on things like that.

I'm another who would question "often"...