Uncomfortable about unisex toilets at work

[Onlyinanemergency]

My workplace is moving to new premises and all the toilets are to be unisex. Apparently the bathrooms consist of several floor-to-ceiling cubicals opening out onto shared sinks. There is then a large window onto a public corridor so that the sink area can be seen from outside the bathroom. There are 3 of these bathrooms, one on each floor of the building, as well as 3 single disabled toilets. The architects have obviously put a lot of thought into creating toilets which are unisex but also fairly safe and private, yet I still feel really uncomfortable about the idea. Particularly about not being given a choice. Am I wrong?

Train of consciousness here, but I was thinking as well, why don't loos and changing rooms have codes of conduct displayed? I mean why don't they currently? Seems they're missing a trick when they could be ejecting anyone they like quite justifiably for breaking them, e.g.:

"When using these facilities you are expected to act with reasonable modesty, and to allow others to do the same"

So basically, "no flashing, no gawping".

Anyway, that's totally off topic. I just wonder why it isn't done. I remember the "no petting" etc. signs from swimming pools when I was young.

It's so nice to agree on something - I would love this to take off.

Oh god Pratchet, I know what you mean.

I''ll think on it.

I fucking love a practical solution, and one that doesn't rely on what it prevents but on what it achieves (but I know that's a personal bias) :)

Rat the fact it was research carried out for/with LGBTI+ youth is a pretty significant fact to omit.
Don’t pretend it doesn’t serve your agenda.

I didn't omit it Gone, I bloody linked to it! I mean it's right at the top in big capital letters, how could anybody miss it? And that's in addition to the fact that I wasn't citing any sort of definitive evidence, more positing the idea that perhaps the young are more open to mixed sex facilities.

Christ, are you looking for a fight? You're picking quite hard.

I'm 34 and I have two.

Hopefully these figures will stay consistent. Just sayin'.

On the internet, you can be a potato ~ thebewilderness

Codes shouldn’t be needed.

It’s a s sticking plaster, have some crumbs ladies solutions forward, like the baskets with san pro. The solution is not removing hwbsingle hing that keeps women safe in single sex toilets in the first place - the exclusion of men.

Who polices that code? It throws all the responsibility back on the women in the toilet. Who do they report to? There aren’t going to be staffed toilets. It’s a meaningless plaster on a gaping wound.

Keep the toilets women only and all this stuff isn’t needed. We should not be having to negotiate for scraps. We have a right to be safe, don’t we? Removing the massive protection and replacing it with cosmetic solutions is not Ok.

LaSqrrl advanced search me, I'm an over-sharer!

Bowl what did you think of Pratchet's suggestion? Would you support it?

I fucking love a practical solution, and one that doesn't rely on what it prevents but on what it achieves (but I know that's a personal bias)

And yet a code of conduct with a list of things starting with "no" somehow fits this description.

Um, it started with "When"...

a mixed sex/family toilet option, in addition to a female specific space.? Rat?

In principle, I’m ok with that, with two caveats.

1. That inconveniences men. (Men are also entitled to privacy and dignity even though they don’t have the same safety need) and so it’ll never happen. Speaking as a cynic...

1. It would need to be very clear that the female specific space is retained. It cannot be the thin end of the wedge to go full unisex.

What id prefer to see is three able bodied spaces - Male, female and unisex (disabled should be retained, disabled people fought hard for their loos!)

Our local mall has this by the way - a male toilet, a female toilet, disabled and a baby change equipped family toilet. As well as a separate BF room.

I would prefer to expand space provision not remove it.

Men can fight their own battles. If they want sex specific they can say so and campaign for it.

@ratrolypoly: "When using these facilities you are expected to act with reasonable modesty, and to allow others to do the same"

So basically, "no flashing, no gawping".

So I'm stood at the sink in my bloody knickers, washing blood out of my linen trousers, and someone decides I'm "flashing". In a mixed environment, the complainant has more grounds for getting that to stick. Codes of conduct could be used against women and they aren't an alternative to single-sex loos for ensuring safety.

Yup I agree pratchet. My cynical side says that when this starts affecting men they might do something about it,

Regardless, it’s always women expected to move over, give up rights, submit, bow to and capitulate. I’m saying a huge NO to that. No more. Up with this I will not put.

When using these facilities you are expected to act with reasonable modesty, and to allow others to do the same

Try codifying modesty. It’s impossible to do in any sense that doesn’t berate women. Just look how women in so many countries are expected to be ‘modest.’ What it really means is don’t exist while female

@Bowlofbabelfish: Our local mall has this by the way - a male toilet, a female toilet, disabled and a baby change equipped family toilet. As well as a separate BF room.

YY this is how to do it, with the family loo signed clearly as being gender neutral.

I said vaguely similar Pratcher, on another thread earlier. I said if transwomen want to fight for their own safe spaces, we'll fight with them. If they want access to women's safe spaces, we'll fight against them. I was called a bigot! The poster had done a flounce before I had chance to return. Does anyone know if my sentence was indeed bigotry because I certainly wouldn't want that? First time I've been called this, it's quite upsetting.

Okay, so we appear to have missed the framing of my post about "codes of conduct".

I asked the question why we don't currently have these around anymore, as I'm sure they used to exist in swimming pools, for example, when I was younger.

The purpose was not to codify anything, those notices used to be up as a disclaimer essentially, so that the management of the facility had essentially warned users that they are at the discretion of the management's interpretation of the word "reasonable modesty".

It's not a solution, it's not a catch-all, I was simply wondering why they weren't there. It strikes me that if someone - anyone - is gawping at me in a changing room, or exposing their genital gratuitously, the management might want a little disclaimer in place to eject that person at their own discretion.

And as for standing in my knickers washing blood out of my trousers, someone might think that was unreasonably immodest, but the management would surely say "nope, our decision is final, we reckon that's quite reasonable actually".

It was not presented as a "don't worry, mixed sex is fine if you just have signs!", not at all. It was, "I wonder why we don't have signs anymore, because no-one wants to see lewd behaviour from anyone in a toilet or changing room, do they".

Again, I really do think the appropriate language and framing was all there in my original post.

We don’t have signs because they’d be meaningless. Nobody is there to enforce them. Nobody obeys them. That’s why they were removed. The only place they are ever any use is where you have an attendant or lifeguard

If we put them up, who enforces them? Who is there to help with any breaches? It puts the onus back on the women

Absolutely no one who would engage in criminal, or worrying behaviour is going to see a sign and think ‘actually, best not...’

Absolutely no one who would engage in criminal, or worrying behaviour is going to see a sign and think ‘actually, best not...’

No, of course not, but it would mean management could remove someone leching over your body at their discretion with far less hassle, no?

I'm interested you say they don't have them because they'd be meaningless; do you have some professional insight perhaps? Only we still have the "no petting, no kissing" etc ones at our pool - just asked dp - and pubs and stuff have "Entry may be refused at management's discretion", so they must achieve something in their opinion at least?

Anyway, look, I'm not too keen to debate the worth of signs, it just seemed like places were missing a trick in not having them in changing rooms. Totally off topic really, in retrospect. Apologies for the derail.

But who manages public loos? There isnt a management. Vanishingly few have attendants, and in the few that do the presence of the attendant is what makes the difference, not the sign.

Management of a private venue can remove anyone at any time for any valid reason, they don’t need a sign.

The reason I’m saying this is because it is again a sticking plaster on a wound. And symptomatic of the attitude that women are being unreasonable for wanting private spaces.
On all the threads there have been on this it’s been the same pattern; instead of women feeling able to say a simple ‘no’ they have ended up in convoluted arguments justifying, explaining, defending what should already be their right to have. no should be enough, a woman’s no is not the start of a negotiation

There’s a simple, already in place solution to safety in women’s toilets - not letting men in.

Why change that?

There was a code. Men stay out of women's toilets. Women were courteous and kind to men who had operations and changed sex. The TRA changed all that.

I was just pondering -- gay men into cottaging aren't going to be in favour of this either....................

I seem to recall one incident with a confused cottager and a FTM in a US department store restroom (which is apparently weekday cottage of choice, who knew eh?).

But probably not a great campaigning point.

A group of people who make quite different use of public loos are homeless people. I have occasionally encountered women, clearly homeless, using the open area of the ladies loos where the wash basins are, attempting some basic hygiene. Particularly in rural areas there may not be services which provide showers and etc. They may not be a large group, but they are very vulnerable.