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?

My position is that Stonewall is the last organisation that should ever be consulted when it comes to the safety, privacy and dignity of the female sex.

Any company that declares itself a Stonewall Champion is one to be avoided by all females. Any school that declares it achievement of the Stonewall Gold, Silver or Bronze standard is one that should be avoided by female pupils.

Stonewall ignores the wellbeing of females at every level of its operation, it seems.

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.

And exactly what are those "false claims" I have made Cohle? Please be very specific here when you respond. Thank you.

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

This is not always the case and, if such a circumstance should arise, the design of such space needs to be improved to ensure avoidance.

We've just done this.

"^You are misreading s.27(6) of Schedule 3.
The section permits the provision of single sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. The section does not, as you claim, prohibit the provision of unisex sole occupancy toilets or somehow transform public spaces such as corridors, hallways or any room into which a toilet opens, into an area it is reasonable to expect to be single sex.

You are also misreading whichever section of the EA you think requires separate male and female loos. The EA permits this but it doesn't require it. There is separate legislation requiring the provision of male and female loos applicable in some circumstances eg. the Workplace Regs 1992."^

Decomposing - a busy corridor where men are waiting to use the single occupancy toilets was a big part of the problem for the 9yr old girl and her mother in the first set of screen shots I posted.

Although since then you've also added a number of totally unsubstantiated claims about precisely what corridors are and aren't allowed based on no more than your personal opinion as far as I can make out.

ZebrasAreBras

I get that but on balance, I would prefer to use single occupancy cubicles on a busy corridor than say single sex multi cubicle toilets set in remote isolated place. In some instances one type will be safer, in other instances the other type will be safer.

The section permits the provision of single sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. The section does not, as you claim, prohibit the provision of unisex sole occupancy toilets or somehow transform public spaces such as corridors, hallways or any room into which a toilet opens, into an area it is reasonable to expect to be single sex.

In which post did I make the claim you state here please?

I am sure I stated that ss6 provides for objection to any male discovered in a space or service that is expected to be for females only. By objection I mean making a direct statement to the management of such a space that a male is in a female space and, perhaps, asking of that management what can be done about this.

Beyond that, if the management says that nothing can be done it is open to that complainant to make a claim to the court based on ss6 and any other relevant Exceptions iterated in Section 27.

But how could such an objection apply to a unisex toilet which is not expected to be for females only?

Although since then you've also added a number of totally unsubstantiated claims about precisely what corridors are and aren't allowed based on no more than your personal opinion as far as I can make out.

Exactly what are those unsubstantiated claims, Cohle. Please be very specific when you respond. Thank you.

Ok, for example "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."

What case law or statutory material is this distinction based on?

What case law or statutory material is this distinction based on?

Have a look at the Sexual offences Act 2003?

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

My local Wagamama has loo’s, fully enclosed, but down a corridor out of view. It makes me feel very uneasy. I won’t be going any time soon.

What part of the SOA draws the distinction between different types of corridors that you are claiming exists? Please be very specific.

What part of the SOA draws the distinction between different types of corridors that you are claiming exists? Please be very specific.

Ho ho! Deflection, dude! But ... I'll play along!

Any organisation that enforces confinement of females in a constricted space with males is open to a charge of facilitating sexual offence should that occur. If a Risk Assessment is not undertaken by such an organisation that organisation leaves itself exposed to such a claim. Insurance companies [see Public Liability Insurance] usually require Risk Assessment to cover all eventualities to potential legal claims, tot he best of my knowledge.

I wonder if Wagamamas have done a risk assessment?

Or if any of the places converting women's facilities to unisex have done one?

I'd simply like to see a return to the provision of single sex spaces - add gender neutral by all means, but don't take the women's provision away.

I wonder if Wagamamas have done a risk assessment

Fuck no!

Perhaps they thought speaking to Gendered Intelligence was enough.

They should probably stop speaking to niche trans rights lobby groups, and consult women and their customers.

Indeed, Zebra. The Insurance Friendly provision is third and separate facilities for those who have no claim in law to being female or male [as defined in UK law], and that includes those people who have the Legal Fiction that is the GRC.

How am I deflecting? I asked you a question and your response was to ask me if I'd read the Sexual Offences Act. I just want to know how exactly you think that piece of legislation supports what you are saying because as far as I can make out it absolutely doesn't.

Any organisation that enforces confinement of females in a constricted space with males is open to a charge of facilitating sexual offence should that occur.

Where exactly in the SOA is this stated?

Insurance companies [see Public Liability Insurance] usually require Risk Assessment to cover all eventualities to potential legal claims, tot he best of my knowledge.

Something being required by insurers has nothing to do with whether it is illegal either under equalities legislation or criminal law. My home insurance requires my front door to be locked to be valid. That doesn't mean I'm breaking the law if I fail to do so.

Dearie me!

Something being required by insurers has nothing to do with whether it is illegal either under equalities legislation or criminal law. My home insurance requires my front door to be locked to be valid. That doesn't mean I'm breaking the law if I fail to do so.

The very act of not locking your door if your insurance policy requires it invalidates your insurance! The Insurance Company is not obliged to act for you financially in such circumstance.

Do you understand what Insurance is about? It is all about limiting liability so that Insurance Companies are never put in the position of their customers requiring them to pay any compensation to anyone ever. This is why Risk Assessment exists.

Any organisation that enforces confinement of females in a constricted space with males is open to a charge of facilitating sexual offence should that occur.

See Public Liability Insurance and Risk Assessment. Organisations are obliged to avoid facilitating criminal offence. No Insurance Company would ever provide Insurance Cover for the facilitation of any criminal offence.

Why do you think that home insurance policies have such stringent rules for the deterrence of the criminal offence of burglary, for example.

You really don't understand much about any of this do you?

Yes, that's exactly my point. The fact that a risk assessment may be required by insures doesn't mean that the restaurant are doing anything illegal. Insurers will require a risk assessment of floor washing in case anyone slips - that doesn't make washing a floor illegal. A risk assessment of corridors outside loos may for example identity that they should be covered by CCTV.

Can I ask again what precisely in the SOA do you think has anything to do with corridors outside toilets leaving Wagamama "open to" a claim under the EA?

If a sexual offence occurs within an enforced confined corridor any provider could be charged with negligence in relation to public liability insofar as that enforced constricted space was intended by that organisation. That is, the organisation did not do an adequate Risk Assessment on behalf of all users of that confined space and the potential consequences.

In terms of its Public Liability Insurance, that organisation is "fucked"!