Wagamama and gender neutral toilets

[TulipsTulipsTulips]

40% of wagamama’s toilets will be gender neutral by September. The last thing I want to do when I go out for a meal is share the facilities with men. We are different and deserve privacy! How have women’s interests become such a low priority?

I've often seen the words rebranding the women's bathrooms as gender-neutral but never "rebranding the men's bathrooms as gender-neutral." Why is that, I wonder?

Because it’s a (white, straight) mans right movement.

They can do this but can't provide decent baby changing facilities, ok....

By they I mean most restaurants.

There appears to be a number of fears, ie: discussing rebranding the men's, empathising with women and girls concerns/feelings, upsetting the trans community, etc.

In the instance of the wagamamas near me there isn't any rebranding. The toilets have always been unisex. We also have a lot of small coffee shops on our high street that only have 1 toilet because there is no space for anymore so not sure how they could have a M,F and 3rd space too.

But are they going out of their way to paint a rainbow on the loo door and trumpet their trans credentials?

DecomposingComposers that's ridiculous- I use a tiny cafe now and that has just one toilet, but it's a really nice little room with always a tiny bouquet of flowers on the window sill. It doesn't need to be anything but what it is, as it's reached from a tiny lobby that has no other rooms off.

The constant sneers about "don't use toilet on plane then?" "do you not share a bathroom at home?" are so disingenuous and wearisome. If you don't understand why women feel safe in some situations and not in others you have no empathy and don't care to listen to what other women are saying. Why is that?

The number of people on here saying, "Well, it doesn't bother me."

Good for you. If you look up high enough, you'll see the point sailing over your head.

That is that none of these places are first asking women how they view the changes. Before implementing them. And not implementing them if women object.

Just the fact of objections is sufficient. People don't have to understand them or agree with them or have experienced them. It's enough that someone says, "No. That makes me even more uncomfortable than everybody already is in public loos."

Unless, of course, she's such a nobody that no one will be harmed if she's ignored.

But are they going out of their way to paint a rainbow on the loo door and trumpet their trans credentials?

What's wrong with it if they are? I thought your concern was women's safety not just dislike of the trans movement.

PCohle because they've removed something that, culturally, half the population have had for over a hundred years, and said that they've done it for the benefit of less than 1% of the population. Why would a business do that, if not to signal how unimportant one section of the population is compared to the other?

But they're not removing single sex toilet provision from women. They are removing it from everyone. I struggle to see how that's specially an attack on women.

Their statement doesn't refer to trans individuals but rather, we wondered whether we are doing everything we can, to be as inclusive as we can, to every part of the LGBTQ+ community.

A gay male friend of mine was assaulted in a men's loo. I know he would feel more comfortable in an individual bathroom. I don't think it's necessarily accurate to characterise this as being solely for the benefit of the trans community.

Gaslighting. "It's for everyone's benefit, why are you women being so difficult?"

Still no answer to my question, I see.

Are you happy with an increased risk of being featured in the spy cam categories on porn websites?

Yes? Cool with you?

I'm not psychologically abusing you merely because I politely disagree with your opinion.

I absolutely think protecting women's safety and privacy is critical. I just don't think getting up in arms about a scenario that actually doesn't seem, on balance, to negatively effect women helps that cause.

It’s nothing to do with a dislike of the trans lobby but a dislike of the pushing to the front one group over the rights and safety of others. Do they scream ‘we are seniors friendly!’ ‘We support our disabled guests!’ ‘We have staff that can use BSL’? No.

Banging their drums over one minority car but stuff everyone else who needs support or assistance. Yeah great.

And yes, because I don't believe there actually is an increased risk. I think unsubstantiated articles in the likes of the daily mail fear-mongering and alarming women is itself sexist and a form of oppression.

Frankly as demonstrated by the articles linked on this thread, much of the risk of voyeurism seems to come from cubicle style loos.

I dont believe it! Ok then.

My point about planes is we can share toilets in certain circumstances. Realistically most planes have at least 2 bathrooms so you could separate them based on sex.

Also the fears re cameras are as true on planes as anywhere else.

I would say single occupancy toilets are safer overall. Also they are better for people with disabilities, as are more spacious and easier to use than a normal cubicle.

Why have we traditionally had female enclosed spaces specifically? Why is this being pushed back now and by whom? Always ask yourself who will benefit and why are they doing this. This is to normalise the idea of mixed sex spaces. Why wamamamma and not the M&S cafe?

I'm beginning to think we could actually use this to our advantage, unfortunately though it would mean telling porkies. For instance, when we can't obtain a service (whatever that may be) cry Trans and hey ho, instant service and empathy. Thinking of my own plight at the moment which is trying to get help with something re disabilities but being completely ignored even by MP.

And yes, because I don't believe there actually is an increased risk. I think unsubstantiated articles in the likes of the daily mail fear-mongering and alarming women is itself sexist and a form of oppression.

Frankly as demonstrated by the articles linked on this thread, much of the risk of voyeurism seems to come from cubicle style loos.

You're either in denial or deliberately gaslighting. There are already links to news articles on this thread and you know nobody is going to link to porn sites. Try googling something like "spy cam toilets". You won't need to click through. It's a top genre on most porn sites and there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of videos.

Cast your mind back to the Swiss cheese security model posted upthread. These types of toilets remove a security layer and increase the likelihood you will one day feature in the spy cam section of a porn site.

Are you cool with this? Yes or no?

Oh I very much doubt that PCohle will ever feature in one of those videos. If you don't believe in it, it will never happen.

It's not gaslighting to disagree with you. Please stop accusing me of a form of physiological abuse because I don't happen to agree with you.

The links posted on this thread are either vague unsubstantiated articles quoting "experts" to justify their moral panic, or else they are one off incidents that fail to indicate any increased risk specific to unisex single occupant toilets.

Porn isn't real. I think it fairly likely that the vast majority of women featured in "spy cam" videos have consented to being filmed. The pizza boy probably knows he's in a porno too.

So yes, I am "cool with this". You don't have to keep asking.

So yes, I am "cool with this". You don't have to keep asking.

Finally.

A bridge too far