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?

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?

Most women are horrified by the idea of a spaycam watching unconsenting women's genitals when they go to the loo.

The odds of finding a woman who would do that are significantly lower than finding a man who would. So single-sex loos, by the fact that the creepy pervert needs to either find a woman who will be willing to fit the camera, or find a time where there is nobody about and he can sneak, undetected, into the women's loos himself, massively reduces the opportunity, which massively reduces the risk.

So yes, single-sex loos are safer.

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

Know that I feel your pain!

Most women (and men) would find the idea of taking indecent pictures of babies in nursery abhorrent or the idea of allowing your child to be abused abhorrent yet there are some women that have done this at the behest of men.

I don't find it a massive stretch that an abusive man couldn't coerce a vulnerable woman into doing this, especially if they could make money out of it. If it is such a big problem then I think it's naive to think that a single sex toilet is immune to this.

Can someone explain the cheese thing? Cheese isn’t made in layers, I don’t get it.

I don't think most cameras are placed by women. I think perverts are just brazen enough to go into women's toilets when not many people are around, especially single-occupancy ones. If somebody's there when they come out, most people will be too shocked/scared/timid to say anything, or the pervert man will just say "whoops went in the wrong one, sorry".

I'd say the "deterrent" of a toilet being marked as "female" is extremely low against a pervert criminal who wants to secretly record females.

But as I said before, that's just my opinion, I haven't seen any evidence either way. Happy to be proven wrong.

Michelleoftheresistance I know! After I hit post I realised that that's a actually one of the arguments used about all sorts of things.

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

I doubt that would be particularly hard for the reasons given by DecomposingComposers . I think it's extremely naive to assume no women would do this or that it would be particularly difficult to find a willing one.

NunoGoncalves

Maybe you're right. It just seems like whenever a deterrent is put in place, rather than stopping the criminals, they just find a way to get around it. This just seems quite obvious to me - pay or bully a desperate woman to do this.

Sigh. It's about risk reduction. Nobody is saying risk elimination is possible.

I'd say the "deterrent" of a toilet being marked as "female" is extremely low against a pervert criminal who wants to secretly record females

In the Wagamama situation presumably they have a 50% chance of the camera catching a man. Who's to say that isn't a deterrent?

I don't think it would be particularly difficult to persuade a woman whether by coercion, money , a misguided sense of pleasing her man or even a shared interest to go in and place one. Or as NunoGoncalves said for the man to do it himself and rely on sheer brass neck.

Why are so many posters determined to call anyone who disagrees with them stupid? I doubt petty name calling is going to encourage anyone to suddenly agree with your perspective

Indeed and only a few pages back one of my comments was called stupid. And I am on the other side of your argument. So who's bloody stupid now?

Can someone explain the cheese thing? Cheese isn’t made in layers, I don’t get it.

It's a risk reduction model. No single risk management protocol will be 100% effective so you have layers of multiple protocols. Each will have exploitable loopholes but the chances of them all lining up together are small, thus each layer of protection has a bigger effect than just itself.

Here's an explanatory picture showing how the loopholes need to completely align to make the layers ineffective. But mostly they don't, so multiple layers are usually effective.

I posted Haxxor's lengthy explanation of how it works in toilets upthread.

Ah thank you! Slices of cheese, with you.

some women that have done this at the behest of men
Indeed, some not all, not many, not loads, some.

I'd say the "deterrent" of a toilet being marked as "female" is
extremely low against a pervert criminal who wants to secretly
record females
And I want to keep the risk as low as possible. Single sex is as low as the risk can be, without chipping each individual with only a key to their sex loos.

But as I said before, that's just my opinion, I haven't seen any evidence either way. Happy to be proven wrong
No, you go prove us wrong. You want men to access all areas, you prove to us why that should happen. Ta

No, you go prove us wrong

No, that is not how burden of proof works.

Sigh. It's about risk reduction. Nobody is saying risk elimination is possible.

This. Also sigh.

No, that is not how burden of proof works.

But it is how Chesterton's fence works.

You want men to access all areas

I don't. I prefer single occupancy lockable rooms but don't prefer them enough to campaign for them. I'm largely indifferent to whether Wagamamas et al have them or the traditional cubicles.

I don't care enough about this to campaign to keep the traditional cubicles. Neither option has any bearing on whether I will eat in Wagamama, unlike their food , which I really don't like.

But it's up to those wanting to change the status quo to make a convincing argument. Something is being taken away from women, it's not the other way round.

Having to be brazen or have a female accomplice does add an extra cheese layer to the security model, because it would be easier for men to do it if these things weren't necessary.

But it's up to those wanting to change the status quo to make a convincing argument. Something is being taken away from women, it's not the other way round.

Indeed.

But it's up to those wanting to change the status quo to make a convincing argument. Something is being taken away from women, it's not the other way round

Perhaps. But I'm not arguing for the change. I'm only defending my position of not being concerned about the change, since so many people were intent on implying that anyone who doesn't care is stupid.

I don't WANT to change the status quo. I just don't care if it is changed. I don't believe hidden cameras is a significant risk or a is risk that is significantly increased by making single-occupancy toilets mixed-sex. There are lots of places in life where risks to women could be marginally reduced by making them women only spaces, but we don't because the risk is actually very small. In my opinion, this is one of them, which is why it doesn't bother me.