LinkedIn chat about men bringing their dd into women’s loos

[thetinsoldier]

As above. He says he doesn’t want to take her into men’s loos, what should he do? Cue lots of women saying it’s fine, come into our loos, we don’t mind at all.

I said he should find a family loo or unisex loo, or take her into the men’s. He doesn’t want to, says he wouldn’t be using the loo. I said that he’d still be there, and that many women need single sex spaces for religious or other reasons, plus it’s the law.

He’s just said it seems to be the consensus that he should use the women’s loos.

Why are some men so selfish?

What else can I say?

@NovemberMorn @SwirlyGates

The guidance is guidance to support organisations to follow the law. It is statutory guidance - not a 'here are some ideas, follow them if you like'

The law applies to organisations (see also workplace regulations).

The law says that if an organisation designates a changing room, toilet, hostel, domestive abuse setting (amongst others) as single sex spaces, then they are for biological sex. The guidance says that a female bringing a young male child into a female single sex space doesn't invalidate the single sex space (and vice versa)
If a female brings an older child/adult male into a female single sex space, or a male brings and older child/adut female into a male single sex space, other users of SSS can complain to the service provider/employer.

The response of the service provider (I'll leave employer out for now) could be to

• ask the non compliant customer to use the correct SSS
• ask the non compliant customer to leave the facilities

Depending on the response of the non compliant customer, the service provider could

• call authorities for support
• ban the non compliant customer from using the service

If the non compliant customer continues to not comply, the service provider and/or the other customers could pursue

• charges of harassment
• charges of voyerism

Both of which could result in a criminal process being deployed

Maybe just maybe,the guys who don't like bringing their kids onto the gents, start talking to the gents and saying clean up your mess, piss in the urinal not the floor, clean shit off the seat..... You know, make guys responsible for their own mess! Trans women can't use gents toilets due to fear of violence, sort the guys out instead of women taking in more responsibility, nappy changing, disabled, trans are all in a very small amount of space, and how dare we complain, and it's the guys telling us that! Guys who are the problem, telling women to put up and shut up cause guys can't control their urges, violence, piss streams or cleaning. Where are these alpha males? Telling the others to sort themselves out? No where! it's easier to shout down to women to just suck up more restrictions due to male behaviour. If they can't trust themselves or each other, they have to start acknowledging their behaviour, but no, just attack women for not wanting to have to deal with more of their problems

sorry @SwirlyGates I meant to tag @ScaryM0nster not you - SM is wrong in their understanding

‘The updated Code coming into force today does not make new law or create any new legal obligations. It provides legally accurate, impartial and up-to-date guidance on the existing law: to help everyone understand it, organisations comply with it, legal advisers interpret and advise on it, and courts and tribunals apply it.

‘The Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations is statutory guidance. This means it has been approved by the Secretary of State and formally laid before Parliament. The Code does not impose legal obligations. Nor is it an authoritative statement of the law: only the courts and tribunals can provide such authority. However, the Code can be used in evidence in legal proceedings brought under the Act. Courts and tribunals must consider any part of the Code that appears relevant to any questions arising in such proceedings.’

from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/news/services-code-practice-comes-force

None of those given examples refer to a male bringing a young child into a female space.
As for the hypothetical charges of harassment or voyeurism being brought, highly unlikely if not ridiculous, when all a father wanted to do was tend to his young daughter.

A hard and fast rule that single sex toilets must only be used by the biological sex it's designed for, apart from the examples given, is obviously unworkable in some instances.
Previously mentioned, a disabled woman needing her husbands help...if no accesable toilet is available, he cant go in the female toilet, she cant go in the gents...what do you think the EHRC guidance would be in that instance?
.

An adult male bringing a young female child into a female SSS will have invalidated the SSS. The guidance is quite clear that a young male child accompanying a female caregiver into a female SSS doesn’t because there is no potential ‘threat’ or ‘harm’ to the women in the SSS. The reasons why SSS are permissible are laid out.

I’ve already covered what actions I would suggest in the case of lack of disability provision.

Charges of harassment are not likely after one incidence but a male frequently accessing female SSS can lead to the service provider taking action, including banning them from using the service.

Exactly - because the EHRC does not consider there is ever a need for a man to do that.

They should use a self-contained unisex accessible toilet, a gender-neutral facility, or a Changing Places toilet. The man can’t use the ladies loo.

Anyway, if she needs help, a toilet cubicle won’t be big enough for her and her h, so that wouldn’t work anyway.

Given that not all women (and not all men) can access spaces independently, and there is no requirement to provide mixed spaces, then there will always be some cross population.

One persons view of how that cross population should be managed doesn’t trump another’s while both are within the guidance.

The section of the guidance quoted isn’t an ‘answer’ as it’s about changing rooms not toilets, and one of the purposes given in the example is improving access to leisure facilities for adult women.

It’s not common for one of the purposes of ladies toilets being to improve access.

At which point you come back to the question as to whether you prioritise one persons preference to use facilities designated for their own over their need for support.

You either;

• bar people with opposite sex carers from using the facilities designated for their sex
• acknowledge that it’s not about single sex, it’s about women only, and try and get toilets designated as women’s and unisex and bar females who are dependent on others from using women’s when they’re accompanied by a male carer
• take a pragmatic approach and recognise that when two people who cant be separated, are opposite genders and one needs the toilet - that a circumstance specific judgement needs to be made by all involved.

The changing room example is cited because of the process undergone to determine the need for SSS (see below)

                    <strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong>

13.113 When providing a separate or single-sex service, a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) must be able to demonstrate that doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Read paragraphs 5.52 to 5.57 for further detail on proportionality.
13.114 An example of a legitimate aim, further to those referred to in paragraphs 13.92 and 13.112, for providing a separate or single-sex service could be ensuring the safety of women or the privacy and dignity of women and / or men. The service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) must show that providing the service only to one sex or separately to both sexes is a proportionate way to achieve the aim.
13.115 When considering whether providing a separate or single-sex service is proportionate, the service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) should consider all potential service users and whether there is a fair balance between:

1. the benefits of offering the service as a separate or single-sex service, and
2. the needs of those who are accessing it, and
3. the impact on those who are excluded from accessing it

13.116 When considering the benefits of offering a separate or single-sex service, the service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) should think about whether women’s safety, privacy and / or dignity would be at risk in the service if it was shared with men. Taking the example of offering a single-sex service for women, the service provider should consider factors such as:

• whether women are likely to be in a state of undress
• whether there will be limited ability for women to leave or to choose an alternative service
• whether the service is provided a result of, or connected with, male violence against women
• whether the physical differences between men and women are relevant to the experience of the service and put women at a particular disadvantage

Where factors like these are present, the benefits of offering a separate or single-sex service will be likely to outweigh other considerations in the balancing exercise. 13.117 The needs of potential service users include the specific needs of people with different protected characteristics, such as older people, disabled people and those who observe particular religious practices. For example, Muslim people may have a particular need for separate-sex services to observe the requirements of their faith.

13.119 The impact on those who will be excluded from the service includes both the impact on people of the opposite sex generally and the particular impact on trans people of the opposite sex. In separate or single-sex services, a trans man will be excluded from the men-only service because his sex is female, and a trans woman will be excluded from the women-only service because her sex is male. Trans people are likely to be disadvantaged by this, by comparison to people who are not trans.
13.120 The service provider (or person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) should consider whether the disadvantage to trans people, and any other people who may be disadvantaged, outweighs the benefits of achieving the legitimate aim. They should also consider whether there is a less intrusive option than excluding trans people which would be proportionate (read paragraphs 13.137 to 13.141).
13.121 Having carried out this balancing exercise, the service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) may conclude that arrangements or adaptions can be made to meet the needs of all service users, or that it remains proportionate to maintain only a separate or single-sex service.
13.122 In many cases, it will be proportionate to take a holistic approach to service provision by providing a mix of services which may include both separate or single-sex services and mixed-sex services. The mix of services in terms of the size of the separate or single-sex services and of the mixed-sex services should reflect the needs and relative numbers of service users with different needs.

 <strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong><strong>*</strong>**

This process would include both changing rooms and toilets.

The statutory guidance gives illustrative examples about the needs assessment for provisions which would also include adequate provision for people with disabilities.

Example
13.123 A service provider operates a shopping centre and decides to renovate the centre. It initially intends to only provide separate-sex toilets to improve the safety and comfort of users. This disadvantages trans people because it means that a trans person cannot access a toilet catered towards their acquired gender. They also note that this option may cause safety risks and distress for trans users if required to use the toilets designated for those of the same biological sex. The service provider therefore decides to also provide toilets in individual lockable rooms with handbasins, which can be used by people of either sex.

Example
13.124 A community group is opening a small advice centre. It decides to provide separate-sex toilets for women and men, and it extends the use of the accessible toilet with baby changing facility so it can also be used as a mixed-sex toilet for anybody who does not wish to use the toilet for their sex. This is likely to be proportionate given the size and resources of the centre and takes into account the needs of all the potential service users. The community group should, on an ongoing basis, monitor whether there is any negative impact on both trans and disabled people and take appropriate action. If the community group is exercising public functions, this will also be relevant as part of their duties under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

In the short term the disabled person/caregiver situation, the people involved could ask the service provider for assistance in finding a solution. If the service provider is not following regulations on toilet provision (as set out in the example above) then they should be lobbied to provide adequate provision, luckily for us on mumsnet, we have a poster who is well versed in public toilet safety and provision and will know the regulations around accessible toilet provision that people can use to lobby service providers @keeptoiletssafe

Haha! My attempt to use asterisk to show quoted text has gone awry! Sorry!

• take a pragmatic approach and recognise that when two people who cant be separated, are opposite genders and one needs the toilet - that a circumstance specific judgement needs to be made by all involved.

And in the real world, where women don't see all men as a potential threat, I would bet that is exactly what would happen. It's ridiculous that a young female child, or an older child or adult with a disability could potentially face discrimination simply by needing a toilet when out.

Obviously an ideal solution would be for every public venue to have accessible toilets, but due to finance and space, that's never going to happen.

Hopefully, common sense and a simple sense of empathy will be shared by most females if they encounter anyone in need.

Maybe they were concentrating too much on trans women, and they didn't consider other scenarios.

Bollox. Lots of them around today.

And that seems to end the discussion.
In order to stop transsexual women using ladies toilets, the guidance (not law, which some wrongly insisted it was.), stating that men should not enter a public ladies toilet under any circumstances, other than for maintenance, totally overlooked the reasons why some men, fathers, and carers specifically do need to have access without harassment.

I'm sure in the real world they will continue to do so when needs must.

It is the law that where a single sex space exists it relates to biological sex. The statutory guidance gives advice to organisations how to stay in line with the requirements of the Equality Act. Men do not have a need to access those spaces.

Men do not need to take their daughters into the ladies, they should take them into the mens if there isn't an accessible or unisex space available.

If a man is caring for a disabled woman they need to use a disabled toilet, not the ladies, firstly it the ladies not a mixed sex space and secondly because ordinary stall isn't big enough for an adult and a helper so they will need a disabled space anyway.

People that need fully accessible toilets with hoists etc that are few and far between manage and ordinary disabled/accessibile facilities are far more common than these.

Women's toilets are for women not women and men.

When accessible toilets are available everywhere, I will agree with you.
Till then, if necessary, and a father/carer finds it the best and safest option to use the ladies toilet, the common-sense solution is for him to accompany his daughter/wife into a female toilet.
I'm sure if anyone was crass enough to object, a compromise could be found.
If not, and a case like this ever did go to court citing 'harassment or voyeurism', it would not be taken seriously.
And neither should it.

I do wonder what has happened to society to make some people so stridently black and white in their thinking.

Nothing else to add here.

Why is a girl not safe when she is with her father?

Read the thread. I wont be repeating what I have already posted.

I have read the thread - no where in it have you (or anyone else) explained what danger a girl accompanied by her dad faces.

Why are you so keen to see men given an 'in' to the ladies?
The minute you let in 'deserving' men you let in any man who wants to access the ladies and that means even if 99.9 % of men are no threat to women the .1% have a loophole to exploit.

Single sex spaces are just that, why should victims of male violence, girls negotiating their first periods, women from certain religious and cultural backgrounds have to share their protected spaces with men?

I think it's been mentioned a few times that a gents toilet is not a suitable place for a little girl, and certainly not for an adult woman who may neèd assistance.
Seeing men openly peeing.
Unhygienic and often in a worse condition than Ladies toilets
Very few changing stations if the child needs a nappy change or a clean up.
Till accessible or single occupancy toilets are more available, It's discriminating against the needs of babies, young children and some disabled females, by denying them a safe place to go to a public toilet.

You think the solution is to bring the people responsible for the disgusting condition of men's toilets into the women's?

So why is it OK for small boys to be subjected to this lack of hygiene? Or do boy dads get a free pass into the ladies too?

I have told this many times under different user names. As a teenager my mum was assaulted in a bathroom by a man she should have been able to trust (physically assaulted not sexually). Roll on 50+ years and on a theatre trip to thank her for looking after my then small children for half term she was confronted by trans 'inclusive' toilet. The fear of being in a bathroom with a man even all those years later freaked her out so much she didn't use the loo. Instead she spent the next week with a raging bladder infection unable to leave the house and needing an emergency GP appointment.

Why don't her needs matter? Why is it more important to give men an in to the women's than it is to keep women safe?

It has never been commonly accepted for men to take their daughters into the ladies. If the mens is unsuitable that is a man problem it's not for women to solve by sacrificing single sex spaces.

I don't consent to men using the ladies, neither does my now 80 year old mother, nor do my nieces and you can't consent on our behalf. The women's toilet are not for women and some men, they are for women. Good men stay out so bad men stand out. If we start telling men it's OK they can come in with their daughters, with their wives, with their female feelings the women that need single sex spaces have no where to go. You can't decide that because it's Okay by you that the ladies is now a bloody free for all.

My uncle is 87, he couldn't hurt a fly so is it OK for him to come in? Who is the arbiter of which men are OK to frequent the ladies?