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?

The fact that a set up may be unpleasant or even unsafe in some circumstances doesn't mean that it's a violation of the Equality Act.

Do you actually have any legal basis for what you are saying? Your own opinion and twitter anecdotes aren't actually a reliable basis for statutory interpretation.

Do you even hear yourself, PCohle?

Restaurants should care about the comfort and safety of women and girls.

The fact that a set up may be unpleasant or even unsafe in some circumstances doesn't mean that it's a violation of the Equality Act.

I have said that it leaves the providers of such services to the public open to a sex discrimination claim on the basis of the Exceptions contained within the Equality Act that are primarily intended to protect the safety, privacy and dignity of the female sex from the male sex..

Yes, of course it is for the court to decide if any such claim should succeed but that does not mean that any such claim should not be presented to the court.

Zebras I agree. But I absolutely don't think claiming something is a violation of the Equality Act when it isn't is a constructive way to convey that message** or to protect women and girls.

Yes, of course it is for the court to decide if any such claim should succeed but that does not mean that any such claim should not be presented to the court.

But something "leaving you open to a claim for discrimination" is the same as it being "illegal under the EA" - the two are synonymous.

Of course it is relevant whether a claim would succeed. If the claim wouldn't succeed then your interpretation of the EA is wrong. That's how the law works.

Sorry bold cock up.

That should be:

Zebras I agree. But I absolutely don't think claiming something is a violation of the Equality Act when it isn't is a constructive way to convey that message or to protect women and girls.

Yes, of course it is for the court to decide if any such claim should succeed but that does not mean that any such claim should not be presented to the court.

But something "leaving you open to a claim for discrimination" is the same as it being "illegal under the EA" - the two are synonymous.

Of course it is relevant whether a claim would succeed. If the claim wouldn't succeed then your interpretation of the EA is wrong. That's how the law works.

I’m quite militant about needing separate loos and all this erosion of women’s rights.

BUT I was recently in Bistrot Pierre and when you go in the loo area there are separate cubicles and inside each is a full size sink and all the niceties and hand cream etc. There is no access below or above the loo so you are completely cut off. I’m fine with that.

But something "leaving you open to a claim for discrimination" is the same as it being "illegal under the EA" - the two are synonymous.

If the court decides it is illegal then so be it. If the court decides it is legal then so be it.

I have not said it is illegal. I have not said it is legal. I have said it is open for a claim for the court to decide.

I have said that ss6 gives people the legal right to object to the opposite sex being in any space / service that is expected to be for one sex or the other.

Depressing to see so much effort being put into working out how to remove sex segregated spaces from women. If only that could be redirected to stopping stop men assaulting, harassing, perving, filming women etc. Now that would be expending energy constructively.

(not aimed at you `JackyHolyoake - really appreciate your tireless analysis of the law).

PCohle for someone who agrees with me, you haven't half spent a lot of time on this thread arguing the opposite.

I agree truth.

I am sure that no provider of sex sensitive services to the public would want to leave itself open to any legal claim or would want to find itself in the position of facilitating sexual offences such as the case of indecent exposure described in a post above via those screen shots.

See the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

In the Plymouth branch, the toilet cubicles, although fully enclosed with their own wash facilities, are housed in a very narrow, poorly lit corridor that makes me feel vulnerable. I always accompany my 13 year old daughter as I don’t like the thought of her being in there alone.

I'm going to post a couple of the experiences of Mumsnetters in gender neutral toilets, from the other thread here, just for those who don't bother to click on links.

And here.

Ooops.

I have not said it is illegal. I have not said it is legal. I have said it is open for a claim for the court to decide

Literally anything is open to the court to decide, it's a virtually meaningless statement. It would be "open" to you to challenge anything at all under the EA - that doesn't mean you'll succeed or that your interpretation of the EA is correct.

I'm not sure how providers are meant to avoid being "open" to a claim, given, as you seem to believe, they are open to a claim whether or not they have actually violated the EA.

But zebra those two examples aren't talking about the single occupancy cubicles opening off of a corridor.

Sounds the same as the Cardiff ones MealyPotatoes
They were really creepy.

I'm not sure how providers are meant to avoid being "open" to a claim, given, as you seem to believe, they are open to a claim whether or not they have actually violated the EA.

Dear Cohle, you very silly man, the exercise is for providers of sex sensitive services to consult with women to discover what makes them positive about their safety, their privacy and their dignity rather than to impose on them against their consent.

what makes them positive should have read: "what makes them feel more positive ..."

Indeed Jacky. I am rather at the number of organisations who appear to be content in taking advice about women and children's rights and safety from adults / organisations with no qualifications, dodgy personal histories, where there is significant evidence that they misrepresent the law, not to mention deliberately breach safeguarding. Given the responsibility to exercise due diligence about the quality and accuracy of advice, presumably organisations like the Girl Guides hope their insurers will have deep pockets??

And of course , close their eyes to organisational stupidity and complicity.

Gendered Intelligence are literally the last organisation anyone should consult on anything.

But zebra those two examples aren't talking about the single occupancy cubicles opening off of a corridor.

What's your point? Corridor/room/basement - all single occupancy toilets will open onto somewhere where men can congregate waiting for the toilet.

Dear Cohle, you very silly man, the exercise is for providers of sex sensitive services to consult with women to discover what makes them positive about their safety, their privacy and their dignity rather than to impose on them against their consent.

I'm not a man and whilst I agree that what you suggest is an example of best practice failing to do so is absolutely not a violation of the EA.

Making false claims about legislation damages the credibility of women's arguments and undermines our fight to protect women's spaces. That's why your posts annoy me - not because I don't think single sex spaces are important to protect women's safety and privacy.

What's your point? Corridor/room/basement - all single occupancy toilets will open onto somewhere where men can congregate waiting for the toilet.

Point is that a busy corridor is very different to, for example, a basement with no through traffic.