AIBU to think a 9-year-old boy can use the ladies with mum?

[aliceyyyy2654]

An AIBU on behalf of a friend who told me this story today.

my friend was out with her two children (DS aged 9 and DD aged 6). She took both with her into the ladies loo in her shopping centre. When she was done and the kids were washing their hands an old lady came up and told her it was unacceptable for a ‘young man’ to be in the women’s toilets as he was not a girl. This kid is 9!!

She was rather upset and embarrassed and hurried out and her son asked her why she was being shouted at.

When she told me this story I told her to ignore it and to continue taking her young children into the women’s with her when their dad isn’t present.

AIBU to think that a 9 year old boy should be able to go into the women’s with his mum as it is much safer than going into the men’s alone?

I still take my 10 year old in with me if it’s a particularly dodgy area

Ironically I wait in a queue outside the disabled loo because I cannot meet my dd needs in the regular loo. So we have to wait regardless of who is in the disabled loo and how long they will be.
Can your son not queue?
Why dont you take him.in the mens? Just curious....

I don’t think young children are predatory. I do think that girls (and boys!) are entitled to go to the loo without boys (or girls) being present.

Your friend was fine, the other woman was being ridiculous. What concern can a child as young as nine under the supervision of his mother possibly be. Kids mature at different ages and it's fine if he isn't confident using the men's yet. I would absolutely rather a child felt safe and confident with their mother than was sent unsupervised into the men's before they felt ready.

@StillgotmyiPod Unless he has a legitimate reason to be there (cleaner/paramedic) then men are not allowed in women's toilets - and can be removed.

Single sex spaces have been confirmed to be just that - and if you provide them, then they must be maintained as that.

Actually, that is exactly what it means. It's against the law for a male (above a certain age, as referenced in the SC ruling) to enter a space marked female/women only. Both the SC and the EHRC have said this.

16 year old ds is severely mentally disabled. If theres no disabled toilet available and his dad isnt with us I have no choice but to take him in the ladies with me. I couldn't care a less if anyone has an issue with it. It's the only safe option.

I think that if a parent of an older boy isn't ok with them going to the men's toilets, the solution is for them to find alternatives like family toilets, not for them to impose themselves into women's spaces.

I was at a campsite last month with a family that insisted on bringing a group of boys into the ladies who looking in the 10-15 bracket and I thought it was extremely unfair for the girls who's privacy was overstepped.

Agreed, I’d much prefer for him to use the ladies with his mum in tow. You never know who is hiding in a cubicle waiting for a little one to enter. Mum would have no idea from outside. Sad but true.

I think your friend did absolutely nothing wrong. A 9‑year‑old isn’t a “young man”, he’s a child, and children go where their parent goes when they’re out together. Women’s toilets are cubicles with doors, nobody is wandering around naked so the idea that he’s somehow “inappropriate” is just nonsense.

There isn’t a hard age cut‑off. Some kids are confident using public loos alone at 7, others aren’t ready until 10 or 11. It depends on the child, the environment, and whether there’s another adult with you. A shopping centre loo is busy, echoey, and not always the safest place to send a child off on their own.

The old lady was out of line. Your friend was supervising her children, keeping them safe, and using the facilities available. That’s what parents do. When her son is confident enough to go into the men’s on his own, she’ll let him but that’s her call, not a stranger’s.

So no, you’re not being unreasonable. A 9‑year‑old boy with his mum in the ladies is completely normal and perfectly acceptable.

No, it's not.

You don't understand the law.

The EA, which was qualified by the SC ruling, does not apply to individuals. It only applies to organisations, companies etc.

The EA has no power to impose criminal or other sanctions on individuals who go into the wrong sex loo, because frankly any law that tried to do that would be impossible to draft and would be bad law.

It remains legal for a man to be in a woman's loo and vice versa.

It is NOT legal for an organisation to label spaces as single sex but treat them as unisex.

Jonathan Haidt was on radio 2 today - talking about phone use in schools etc mainly, but he made a really interesting point - we are all over cautious in the real world and under cautious in the digital world. It’s definitely scary when we start to let our kids go, but I think 9 is the right age. If not, when?

You think that there is always a disabled toilet available? I can assure you, that isn't true. Especially if there's only one and especially if it also is baby changing.

If it is free, we use it. If not, he comes to the ladies with me.

If more disabled toilets were available such as multiple disabled toilets, it wouldn't be an issue but here we are.

Logically any male person will be safer in the ladies than the gents ( provided they are the only one of course) so the logic that it’s safer means that each man says “oh it’s safer in the ladies “ and we don’t have any ladies loos left

8 is the normal cut off - stick to it

I understand the law very well, I have it downloaded and screenshot.

The management must have the male evicted, otherwise they are breaking the law by not being responsible for ensuring the space is single sex (if it is marked as such). The male can also be questioned. This has been backed up by the EHRC when asked on twitter/X.

It is you, that does not understand the law.

More family toilets are needed frankly. It shouldnt have to be a discussion because there should be a safe and aporopriate alternative for patents with opposite sex children.

The best case scenario would be for men not to be dangerous in the first place... but i tbinl we afe a long way off that.

Then please quote the legislation which states that a man / woman commits an offence if he / she goes into the wrong sex toilet.

Not screenshots from X, the actual legislation please.

At our local gym the age cut off for a boy being in the women's changing room is 8. I think it matters what the boy looks like. A 9 year old could look very small for their age, or be tall and big, almost like a teenager. I'm curious that you're worried about sending him into the men's toilets?

I don’t have kids so think I can be objective here, as I don’t know of any “rules”. I would have no issues with a nine year old boy being in the ladies with his mum. I wouldn’t think it odd at all.

I think 9 is a bit old, sorry Op.

It does reinforce my thoughts that we ought to go to just individual cubicles for everyone (straight off the main concourse) and get rid of “semi private” shared sink areas and especially urinals all together.

Because it is uncomfortable sending your son into the gents that young, but having them in the ladies with their 9 yo girl counterparts is worse.

My kids are these ages & my 9yo would go in mens.

8 is the normal cut off - stick to it

Fine. You stick to 8. I will continue to bring my son into the ladies loo until he's 10 or 11.

A little boy supervised by his mum is not a danger to a girl/ woman in a closed cubicle. A young boy is likely at more risk, alone in the mens' toilet.

We need the space and it is really tricky in the regular loo but I can just about manage. If his dad is with us and the disabled toilet is unavailable, he will take him to the mens but I don't feel comfortable going into the mens with him.

Waiting isn't usually an option if a loo is available.

Even worse is the dads who think they can come into the ladies with their dds.

Almost no one wants to be in the men’s loo, it seems, so let’s just get rid of them!