Is it ok for men to be in the ladies loos if they need to assist a disabled wife?

[someoneelsesshoes]

Not sure if I’m unreasonable to have felt a bit strange about this.

I went to the ladies toilets in a garden centre and there was a man standing by the sinks. I immediately went to walk out as I thought I’ve mistakenly gone into the men’s. He then said sorry and said he was waiting for his wife. He was next to a zimmer frame which I assume was his wife’s.

I felt really strange about this but went into the loo as usual. I understand maybe his wife really needed help to get on/off the loo so dismissed it. She was still in the stall when I left. But when I left the loo I checked the disabled and it was open and ready to use (though maybe it was occupied when she needed it and it was an emergency).

I haven’t come across this before so not sure if we make this concession for male carers. I know disabled people need to be supported and maybe he’s the only one who can help her.

My sister was raped in a women’s toilet when she was 11yrs old. In a busy pub at Sunday lunch time. She’d only just been allowed to go to toilets on her own but my mum thought it would be ok. It wasn’t. My mum felt so guilty she became an alcoholic and eventually died of a heart attack. My sister is still alive but had tons of troubles growing up. Still does. She never married or got a long term partner.

Forgive me, but just no. I’ve zero tolerance for men in women’s toilets.

edit to add. We don’t know that man wasn’t THAT man. He probably wasn’t. He likely wasn’t. But we don’t know, so how about we keep ALL men out. It’s just safer

Well if he doesn't take her she can go alone and there's no need for him in the women's toilets is there!

I'm pretty gobsmacked that it's been suggested this poor woman should have used the men's loos because her carer was male.

I mean fuck her has been a pretty consistent call all through this thread but even so, still an appalling suggestion.

Fuck her, she should have waited till the disabled loo was free. Fuck her, she should have been wearing incontinence pants if she couldn't wait. Fuck her, she should use the men's.

Anyone that disturbed by the sight of a man in the loos with a zimmerframe apologising for being there because he's helping his disabled wife needs a heavy dose of therapy.

No, but the point was made that this man's behaviour went against agreed laws and norms... but there's no evidence that it did, because he didn't break any laws and there's no consensus on whether it was wrong or not either.

I don’t understand the people on this thread. Isn’t this really simple if people used common sense.

Female toilets - women only and very young boys who can’t be left by themselves

Male toilets - males only and if their dads feel comfortable very young girls who can’t be left by themselves

Accessible toilet - for people with disabilities, parents with buggies that can’t get in the single sex toilets, any other situation where an older male/female needs to be accompanied by someone.

Unisex - everyone welcome together

So sorry to hear that it's awful.xx

Yes. It’s very simple

Well so far I've not read a single post centring her needs, or having any empathy for her at all. In fact the vast majority barely acknowledge her existence or her agency, as they're all saying that 'he took her' or 'he decided', like she's just a prop. For all we know she insisted on him taking her to the ladies and he was dying inside.

No they don't. The filthy perverts who attack women in women only spaces need locking up. They cause all of this . Go have a go at them not the women who are afraid of men in their spaces. Blame the men not the women.

She can take herself to the toilet of her choice. But she presumably needs him to help her transfer from Zimmer to toilet.

Yes but the problem is that provision for your categories C or D are often inadequate, meaning those in group C are forced to use A or B and muddle along as best they can.

Even people who have experienced significant trauma? It’s not about the individual man and I think you know that.

🙄

When they are available, yes.

So you're punishing a disabled woman for the acts of a minority of men. Totally logical 🙄

Someone explained the practical issues using the frame earlier in the thread. The user, carer and the frame doesn't fit in the cubicle at the same time.
Once the user sits on the toilet, they can't reach the door to close them. If they need help sitting down/standing up, it means the carer needs to take the frame out, get in, help them, open the door to leave the cubicle (with undressed user sitting on the loo), close it the best they could from outside, wait outside and than reverse it.
It'd be cruel to expect a disabled woman to go through this at men's.

The carer is a role, focusing on aiding her. If the accessible toilet is not available, the disabled person using sex-based facilities and carer accompaning them is the reasonable adjustment.

And all of those circumstances are horrifying and lead to a total understanding of why you would feel the way that you do. I know disabled people who have committed suicide over the general disdain with which they are treated. So we have formed opposite opinions for equally valid reasons.

In some situations there isn’t an accessible toilet there’s just a men’s or a women’s.

as a disabled person who uses a wheelchair I totally agree with the next comment you are going to make which is that there should be more accessible toilets.

yes there should.

There was an accessible toilet

Of course people who have experienced significant trauma should have therapy.

No, it's about an individual woman who can't use the loo on her own. What about her and her needs? Why should they take second place against another woman's wants?

Thank you. I could count on one hand the number of posters who've actually considered the woman's situation, and still have fingers left over.

I just don't get it. This thread has really shocked me.

You are 100% right on both points. However no-one's trauma should force someone to toilet in their pants, or fall using the toilet, or otherwise come to harm because they have been forced to toilet without their partner. Obviously usually it wouldn't come to this because a mixed sex caring pair would use the disabled toilet, but if there was extreme urgency or the disabled toilet was closed, then trauma comes WAY second to physical need however bad the trauma.

I’m yet to go anywhere where there isn’t a nearby disabled toilet…and I know this because I have to use it to get my buggy in most of the time and I also have bowel issues which often mean I need to use it myself.

The issue is more likely that they didn’t want to wait for the one that was there so decided to use the ladies instead. Which of course she is entitled to do, but he shouldn’t have been in there in my opinion.

In this case there was one available

Didn't want to, or couldn't?