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?

@PCohle
To quote The Dude...."yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man."

It's mixed sex...can we at least call it what it is?

@Outanabout I know. That's why I said "I think". I thought the general point of an online chat forum was to like, give our opinions, man?

Do you actually believe that saying "I don't mind using a singleoccupancy toilet that is also used by men sometimes" is the same as being happy to go into a multi-cubicle toilet designated for men only? Really??

And here we go again.
If you wouldn't be happy with multi cubicled mens rooms then why should women be happy with trans women using our multi cubicled rooms?

Baring in mind a trans woman is anyone who says they are.
After all the womens is designated women only, not anyone who says they are woman.

Also women are 51% of the population, that means equal usage by men or women in mixed sex.
And, here and now in wagas it means a single occupancy room, in plenty of other places its cubicled rooms.
This will be rolled out all over the country soon.

If you wouldn't be happy with multi cubicled mens rooms then why should women be happy with trans women using our multi cubicled rooms?

Are you posting on the wrong thread? This one is about single toilets being used by both sexes, not transgender people in multi-cubicled room.

So the risk is no higher in a loo where many men use it over any given hour, as opposed to a loo where only a possible male cleaner uses it?

There's no way of knowing. Clearly the kind of person who does this has no issue going into a female-only toilet anyway –that much is evident due to how common these videos apparently are online, right? And has been said numerous times, many places ALREADY have just one toilet that is used by both sexes. Are cameras found more often in these places?

Well that changes everything. If it's happening already no point trying to prevent it

Well that changes everything. If it's happening already no point trying to prevent it

If what's happening already?

We have a Wagamamas locally. Toilets are individual fully enclosed cubicles with sink in. They're always immaculately clean.

No problem with fully enclosed toilet cubicles that include sinks.

We can always try to minimise risk wherever possible.

Just saying it happens anyway and then dismissing all attempts to reduce opportunities for harm is a crap attitude.

Clearly the kind of person who does this has no issue going into a female-only toilet anyway –that much is evident due to how common these videos apparently are online, right?
This is like pulling teeth,
So we make it way way way easier for a man to go into a womans toilet? We just remove any kind of deterrent at all? Is that even faintly a good idea.
I dunno about the videos, I really dont want to look, but if you wanna take one for the team, crack on

HumberElla Yes, I was making the same point. Just because women are already being perved on is not a reason to reduce safeguarding further

Why are we having to justify our need for single sex spaces? Women fought for and won these, we should not accept losing them for any reason.

Because it's cheaper to build mixed sex, tekes up less space, and you can wave your inclusive credentials at the same time

Sex segregation is usually based on risk. We separate multi-cubicle toilets because cubicles are flimsy, doors have gaps, mens toilets have urinals, etc. various reasons why the risk is big enough to justify the cost. There are plenty of examples of public spaces where women are at risk (actually almost all public spaces) but we do not segregate them because it's not practical and/or the risk is not high enough.

Whether you think single-occupancy toilets and the issue of hidden cameras is a big enough risk or not seems to be entirely based on opinion. Those who believe it's a big risk can laugh and belittle those who do not all they want, but nobody is going to change their opinion are they? I haven't seen any evidence at all—beyond people saying "google it"—that it's a real problem, nor have I seen any evidence that if it IS a real problem, that making a single-occupancy toilet female-only would act as any deterrent whatsoever.

And I have seen no evidence that cameras in toilets are rare and unusual. Until recently I guess we have felt safe because single sex. Now I am more likely to look, cos it's a distinct threat. A viable threat. So yes expect the incidences of voyeurism by camera to increase.
So you dont want to look, I dont want to look. impasse.

We are entitled to single sex spaces and should not be accepting a reduction in those spaces.

Fewer women will use those toilets because, for whatever reason, they will feel uncomfortable about using a mixed sex toilet and that amounts to indirect discrimination.

ShouldBeCookingDinner But if we keep on being told how silly we are we'll see sense and forget we were ever entitled to a space that was female. 🙄

Outanabout - that seems to be the plan but it's not going to happen!

That is, basically, the plan.

To accustom women to being ok with less. Less safety, less dignity, less equality, less inclusion, less being part of society, lesser than men.

Given time, the hope is they'll just get used to it. Since the attempt to get them to see it as something shiny, positive and to embrace and enable their oppression so society can service men better is failing miserably.

As oppose to women rising up in wrath and launching a women's rights movement that makes western society get its shit together for once and for all.

I HATE using public toilets after a man has used them. Seats up and wee everywhere.

Can someone explain how the hidden camera risk is less in a single sex toilet?

What stops a man getting a woman to plant it in there?

If it's happening already no point trying to prevent it

I have not yet had nearly enough glue for this.

By that logic, bring on the BNP. It's happening already, no point in trying to prevent it. Whoops there go disabled rights. And BAME rights. Bye bye safeguarding, it was nice knowing you.

Do you actually have ethics and values you stand up for, or do you just go with the flow? What's that political position called? Liberal defeatism? Nice beliefs but oh well, not actually prepared to stand up to things already happening, so we look a bit reproachful while the far left and the far right trample over fairness and equality and compassion and that sort of stuff?

YES it's worth arguing with. And standing up to. And publicising. And pointing out the realities of going along with a political lobby interested only in what works for a very small proportion of society and actually goes against the interests of a much larger proportion because the rhetoric sounds nice. And maybe advocating for other solutions that work for everyone, as in all society, not just the dominant bits of it.

Err... the PP who said that was being sarcastic, Michelle

What stops a man getting a woman to plant it in there?

Er, having a woman willing to do it? It's another cheese layer.

Argh, sorry. Getting so it's hard to tell after the past few days of GFery.