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?

But these aren't single sex spaces, so how is any of that relevant?

Subsection 6 permits the objection to "mixed sex" spaces. Mixed sex spaces effectively force females, against their consent, to forgo their safety, privacy and dignity [and vice versa]. The Exceptions in the Equality Act are mostly about preserving safety, privacy and dignity.

No it doesn't.

S.6 sets out one of several exceptions to the general prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex. It permits the existence of single sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms, it doesn't require them.

JackyHolyoake

Sorry, you are wrong. These toilets do not constitute a mixed sex space.

S.6 sets out one of several exceptions to the general prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex. It permits the existence of single sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms, it doesn't require them.

I haven't said that ss6 requires them though, have I? I have said that ss6 permits the objection to them and have the offending party removed. There is no basis for such "mixed sex" facilities anywhere in UK law and UK has a convention of single sex spaces that, to the best of my knowledge, no majority of either sex has ever consented to any change in that convention of provision for their respective sex. That is, have men consented to sharing such facilities with women? Have women consented to sharing such facilities with men?

How is anyone sharing these facilities? Can you explain that?

And if these toilets contravene the EA then so do all accessible toilets because one have you ever seen separate male and female ones, situated on single sex corridors?

Sorry, you are just talking rubbish.

They're shared because they are no longer just for the use of women.

They're shared because stuff like this can happen to women in them

And some of you are very naive about what perverted men like to do in toilets used by women. And they get off knowing a woman may come come and use that toilet after them.

And if these toilets contravene the EA then so do all accessible toilets because one have you ever seen separate male and female ones, situated on single sex corridors?

I have not said they contravene the Equality Act. I have said that if a "corridor" is a confined and concealed space [ie: concealed from public gaze] that is expected to be shared by both males and females to access toilets, that corridor is a mixed sex space. To the best of my knowledge, neither sex has consented to sharing such space and such space presents substantial risk to the safety and privacy of females.

ss6 exists for the purpose of objecting to such space. Why else was ss6 written into the law that is the Equality Act 2010? ss6 is explicit in its provision of our legal right to object to such "mixed sex" space. [ss6 is not just about toilets but is about any other "mixed sex" space that is imposed on us against our consent.]

No it isn't. In what possible way do you think s.6 explicitly provides for a right to object to mixed sex spaces?

It explicitly provides service providers with the ability to provide single sex spaces in certain circumstances without violating the law regarding discrimination on the grounds of sex. That's it.

And this There is no basis for such "mixed sex" facilities anywhere in UK law and UK has a convention of single sex spaces that, to the best of my knowledge, no majority of either sex has ever consented to any change in that convention of provision for their respective sex. That is, have men consented to sharing such facilities with women? Have women consented to sharing such facilities with men? is just random made up nonsense that has less than nothing to do with the Equality Act. Spouting stuff like this in no way helps women have their very legitimate concerns taken seriously.

ss6:

(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.

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

Which it isn't. How do you propose 2 or more people use a single cubicle at the same time?

Yes and ss.1 states:

"^A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a) any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b) the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."^

The entire section relates to permitted exceptions to the general prohibition on sex discrimination.

Which it isn't. How do you propose 2 or more people use a single cubicle at the same time?

It is about the mixed sex communal space in which the cubicles are accessed. [And yes, there are historic reports of males forcing females into cubicles with them for the purpose of sexual assault.]

Ok then. A corridor is now a single sex space. Good luck with that one.

Funny how no one ever bothered about accessible toilets being unisex though isn't it? Or is that simply because this is just nonsense?

See also:

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

But then the question comes down to whether the "circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex."

That doesn't mean that any one woman anywhere can object to being in a corridor with a man. It is an objective question for the court to decide whether the reasonable person would object in the circumstances. Which here is preposterous.

That article relates to shared rooms with cubicles, not individual sole-use rooms. You don't appear to have grasped what Wagamama are proposing.

Funny how no one ever bothered about accessible toilets being unisex though isn't it? Or is that simply because this is just nonsense?

Accessible toilets for people with disabilities are isolated, self-contained rooms with full facilities and are completely different from the communal facilities we are discussing here.

That article relates to shared rooms with cubicles, not individual sole-use rooms. You don't appear to have grasped what Wagamama are proposing.

So, Wagamama is proposing providing facilities that are on a par with accessible toilets for people with disabilities? That is, an isolated, self contained room with full facilities within? Just one toilet able to be used by everyone, one person at a time?

That doesn't mean that any one woman anywhere can object to being in a corridor with a man. It is an objective question for the court to decide whether the reasonable person would object in the circumstances. Which here is preposterous.

It is not preposterous if that "corridor" [mixed sex space] is accessible via an entry door that closes and confines people within that space in order to access the facilities. Such mixed sex space puts females at risk. If the entry to the "corridor" is open and visible to public gaze, that is a different matter.

Accessible toilets for people with disabilities are isolated, self-contained rooms with full facilities

Omg. Exactly what wagamamas are doing

Yet this report suggests otherwise: www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/31/wagamama-toilets-gender-neutral

"“In making this move, we don’t want to infringe on others – for example by just rebranding the women’s bathroom as gender-neutral. Our plan is not to take spaces away from people,” Farquhar said. “Some restaurants may have only gender-neutral bathrooms; some might have one or two female-only ones in addition.”"

Here's the problem with shared corridors.
twitter.com/nonmanfryingpan/status/1134770504227807232

It is not preposterous if that "corridor" [mixed sex space] is accessible via an entry door that closes and confines people within that space in order to access the facilities. Such mixed sex space puts females at risk. If the entry to the "corridor" is open and visible to public gaze, that is a different matter.

Yes it is. What possible grounds do you have for the distinction you are drawing between an open corridor and a closed one? Case law, statutory guidance? Or just your own personal opinion?

See the post immediately above yours here PCohle. The one with the screen shots in it.