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?

views would be noted yeah, right.

Why are women who prefer/are comfortable with unisex individual bathrooms being accused of selfish, "I'm alright Jack" thinking whilst the personal preference of women who like single sex stalls is somehow selflessly morally superior?

paffuto

But the toilets here have always been single unisex cubicles. Are they actually removing single sex multi stall toilets? I did ask earlier in the thread.

Certainly here, things will be staying as they always have been, they just seem to be publicising it.

The more people vote with their feet over this, the better.

And write if they have had any problems/horror stories. When you consider how many family groups eat out - which does include women and girls (usually!), if we voted with our feet and told them why they would soon start to worry. Imagine how many mummy groups would no longer sits in cafe's etc etc.

Why are women who prefer/are comfortable with unisex individual bathrooms being accused of selfish, "I'm alright Jack" thinking whilst the personal preference of women who like single sex stalls is somehow selflessly morally superior?

It's not "selfless moral superiority", it's the fact that we have the law that is the Equality Act 2010 to back us up.

See: Schedule 3, section 27, subsection 6:

(6) The condition is that—

(a) the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and

(b) the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7/crossheading/singlesex-services

But the Equality Act doesn't "back you up" by prohibiting unisex, single occupancy toilets. That's perfectly clear even from the extract you've posted, since sole occupancy toilets are not designed to be used by "two or more persons at the same time".

But the Equality Act doesn't "back you up" by prohibiting unisex, single occupancy toilets.

Correct. But this rarely happens. Most toilets are communal facilities and it is to these which we refer. Having more than one mixed sex, single occupancy toilet in a communal space is a communal facility.

Correct. But this rarely happens. Most toilets are communal facilities and it is to these which we refer.

But this entire thread is about the proposed toilets in Wagamama, which explicitly are sole occupancy.

But I think this is the thin end of the wedge.

Making the whole 'gender neutral' terminology mainstream and every day. Thankfully when they tried to make 'unisex' loos the thing when I was a kid it didn't really take off.

But this entire thread is about the proposed toilets in Wagamama, which explicitly are sole occupancy.

Is it just a single isolated toilet, standing alone in its own self-contained space for everyone to use one at a time? Or is it a number of isolated toilets in the same shared space so that two or more people can use each isolated toilet at the same time?

Why don't you read the article and find out?

I don't know what point you're trying to make though. This sort of toilet is perfectly legal and increasingly common place. I

I don't know what point you're trying to make though. This sort of toilet is perfectly legal and increasingly common place.

My point is that if there is more than one toilet in the same designated space that space is a communal space, able to be used by two or more people at the same time; therefore that subsection 6 I posted above comes into play.

Further, if those same toilets are intended for use by staff, Health & Safety law comes into play with sex-segregated toilets being required depending on number of staff in the workplace.

Further to:

This sort of toilet is perfectly legal and increasingly common place.

Just because something is becoming commonplace does not make it legal in terms of that subsection 6 to which I referred earlier.

I used to eat at the very first Wagamama's in london when it first opened.

I won't eat there anymore. Virtue signally companies who give no thought to women and children can fuck right off.

My point is that if there is more than one toilet in the same designated space that space is a communal space, able to be used by two or more people at the same time; therefore that subsection 6 I posted above comes into play.

Yes but the "communal space" is a corridor, not a lavatory. Therefore under 6(b) the circumstances are not such that "a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex." because objecting to the presence of the opposite sex in a corridor near a loo is not reasonable.

These sort of toilet arrangements are perfectly legal.

Yes but the "communal space" is a corridor, not a lavatory.

The shape of the space is irrelevant. A female has the legal right to object to any male she finds in that shared [corridor] space and vice versa.

Give it up Cohle, you are running out of legs upon which to stand.

The shape of the space is irrelevant. A female has the legal right to object to any male she finds in that shared [corridor] space and vice versa.

But wouldn’t that equally apply where there is one loo in a cafe? The actual cafe being the shared space. It would also make the toilets at my work illegal and they’ve just been fitted.

JackyHolyoake

That just can't be right. The hospital that I go to has these toilets in outpatients. They are spaced along the corridors, in the middle of clinic. There is no way that men or women could be prevented from walking past them, that's ridiculous.

And the accessible toilet at our local pub opens directly into the bar. Does that mean whenever I go to the toilet I can demand that all men are removed from the pub and vice versa if a man goes in?

The shape of the space is totally irrelevant but its purpose isn't. Hence why the Equality act permits changing rooms and toilets to be single sex but not, say, restaurants or shops. A corridor in a restaurant is not a space that individuals can reasonably object to the presence of a member of the opposite sex.

You're clearly determined to disagree with me and there's not much I can do if you are determined to misinterpret the EA. By all means try bringing a case against Wagamama.

Aren't those public spaces though

DecomposingComposers

You may be interested to know that hospitals and other NHS services are 100% exempt from any discrimination claims if they adhere to providing single sex services and facilities:

Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3 [Services and public functions: exceptions], sub-section 27 [Single sex services] subsection 5:

(5) The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—

(a) a hospital, or

(b) another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.

It is worth reading the entirety of Section 27, it is very revealing:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3

The NHS has been misinformed by Lobby Groups about the Equality Act 2010 in a very serious way.

How does your last post relate to the toilets though? Surry that's saying that hospitals are exempt from discrimination claims and so can therefore offer single sex facilities? In this case, the toilets are all unisex and open onto the main thoroughfare. According to you, I can insist that all of them waiting to go into clinics on that corridor can be removed when I want to use the toilet and the same for women if a man wants to use it? That makes no sense. I think you've misinterpreted the EA there.

I think you're confusing something being permitted and something being required Jacky.

DecomposingComposers

See also Schedule 9 [Work: Exceptions]

subsection 4:

(4) This sub-paragraph applies to—

(a) a requirement to be of a particular sex;

(b) a requirement not to be a transsexual person;

(c) a requirement not to be married or a civil partner;

[F1(ca) a requirement not to be married to a person of the same sex;]

(d) a requirement not to be married to, or the civil partner of, a person who has a living former spouse or civil partner;

(e) a requirement relating to circumstances in which a marriage or civil partnership came to an end;

(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.

This means that, where staff of the female sex are required to provide a service to users who are of the female sex there can be no discrimination claim if transsexuals are excluded from applying for a post / delivering that service so long as the recruitment process specifies that it is complying with all relevant Equality Act provisions.