Man follows woman into toilet, demands sex

[Thethiniceofanewday]

Reported today “Woman pushed into station toilet by man who demanded sex - West Midlands Detectives continuing to investigate a serious incident at Solihull station in the West Midlands are today releasing CCTV images in connection.

On Tuesday 10 March between 12.20pm and 12.30pm, a woman entered the ladies toilets on platform one at Solihull station.

A man followed her into the toilets and pushed her from behind into one of the cubicles.

He grabbed her and demanded sex. Thankfully the woman was able to fight back, and the man left the toilet when she threatened to call the police.”

Does this help or hinder the case for single-sex toilets?

It was a “ladies “ toilet and that didn’t stop him going in.

For clarity, I am in favour of single sex toilets.

Tells you men prey on women. So women need spaces without men. If men invade these spaces deliberately it’s an early clue they are a danger - as in this case.

To my mind, it doesn’t hinder the case for single sex toilets. It’s completely irrelevant. Criminals don’t care about single sex spaces.
Women and girls have been assaulted, raped, even murdered by men in ladies toilets for generations.

It’s like saying restaurants and businesses should not have “staff only” spaces because a robber entered one and tried to rob the place or a disgruntled customer tried to stab the chef. Not relevant.

I think I’m nearer Binterested - if this had been a gender neutral/unisex lav then that early warning would have been lost.

Men can and will attack women, women should be safe wherever they go, not just in the women's toilets.

You could say someone is safer in there if there was a crowd or a queue but an empty toilet, at night or during the day, is still a place where a woman could be attacked, like an empty corridor or an empty office.

All it does it provide another example of Male pattern violence. Statistically I suppose a woman is safer in a women-only space because of Male pattern violence and if anyone was watching and have a shit they might think it's odd that a man was going into a women's toilet, they might see him follow her, they might raise the alarm, or they might think he identifies as a woman and is allowed in there and think no more of it.

The breaking down of these boundaries never helps women, it only ever helps men.

plan I see the argument I think you’re making used as evidence that we don’t need single sex loos though - criminals will disregard so why are women making a fuss.

If this had been a gender neutral/unisex lav then that early warning would have been lost.

This.

Single sex toilets - about privacy and dignity too.

That’s something to reflect on, Holy - would I have gone in after him?

I would have, I'm sure many would say not to, but I would go on after him and I would take something with me.

If I knew the layout of the loos and they were mixed sex with floor to ceiling doors, sinks inside I probably wouldn't, or I would think twice, because basically both men and women are expected to use them but being self contained the risks are marginally reduced I don't think it erases risk.

As shops and venues change their toilets to mixed sex I am avoiding using them and no longer shop in M&S etc. I won't support this removal of single sex spaces for women with my money. I do however wonder where I will go if they all change on the places I frequent...and that's how the urinary leash began.

This victim will remember this experience forever and also probably struggle to use public toilets for a while at least. I hope she's ok.

“plan I see the argument I think you’re making used as evidence that we don’t need single sex loos though - criminals will disregard so why are women making a fuss.”

It’s an argument only an idiot would make. Would you say we don’t need traffic lights because some drivers run right through them? Or we don’t need non smoking laws, because a few light up anyway? Or prisons because some prisoners escape? Heck why even have any laws at all because someone is sure to break it, anarchy is the way forward.
It’s a stupid argument.

I agree single sex toilets are about privacy and dignity which is not less important than safety. The safety argument is weak, which is exactly why opponents always attack on that front. They always say, well men having been using women’s loos for years dressed as women and nothing’s happened. So how can you say you are at risk? Blah blah.

Fact is, if a man were to peek in a window and see me changing clothes or using a toilet, he’d be committing crime. So why is it suddenly ok to expect me to give up that right to privacy by having toilets that are essentially open to the entire public?

If I were a man, I would not want women walking by and getting an eyeful while I used a urinal either.

One of the most idiotic arguments I ever hear from trans activists:

'If men want to attack women, they will - and single-sex toilets won't stop them.'

We can't possibly know how many men are prevented from following women into toilets in the hope of molesting them, by the fact that they are single-sex. What we shouldn't do is make it any easier for them by making toilets unisex.

In any event, it's not just about being physically attacked - it's about dignity, privacy, feeling comfortable and safe.

Why are the only ones entitled to safe spaces snowflake students who must be protected from having feminist speakers they disagree with on their campuses?

Also the fact that men have been using women’s loos for years does not make me feel better. I already know that some men enjoy violating women’s boundaries - having that fact confirmed by said men is not a consolation.

Seeing a man enter women’s toilets could alert other people, who may raise the alarm or chase him away. I have more than once taken refuge in the women's toilets, to escape from a man. Other women have supported me, which wouldn’t be possible if he had followed me in legally.

There is some argument that a toilet being single sex means people might be alerted when a man goes in there. Realistically that probably depends on the location of the toilet.

You could make a safety argument that there should be chaperones or attendants of some kind in toilets. I do't think that's generally practical, but I've seen people suggest that it might make for more dafety than just separating by sex.

The main reasons to have single sex toilets IMO are around privacy.

Though I would also say that ideas around privacy are connected to behaviour and safety in a way that is difficult to quantify.

The difference is that we can challenge the average male if he walks into the women's loos. We can call on staff or police to remove him.
If the TRAs get their way we wouldn't be able to do any of those things if the man who entered the women's room was, for example, Debbie Hayton.

This idea that the people intending harm will ignore the rules that it's women only and go in anyway is a bit of a blunt instrument.

Social conventions are strong - how else can you explain that men in England and Wales virtually never wear a single tube to cover both legs, and women do, yet just across the border men don't bat an eyelid at the idea (although still only a certain style of tube)

Social conventions absolutely do keep lots of men, including those wishing harm, out of the women's toilets. Someone who's so determined to get into the women's despite all social convention saying they shouldn't, is clearly a dangerous male, and exactly the ones that we don't want in there.

Single sex toilets are just another layer in the Swiss cheese safety model. They were never believed to be a complete reduction of the risk but they are a significant social deterrent.

Aside from which, how many women would ever use multi sex toilets in such a situation? I'd wager a tiny minority which means that changing female to multisex toilets just removes facilities for women.

I'd say if anything it strengthens the case for single sex spaces, in that the more taboos around men accessing women's toilets are lessened the more men will be emboldened to try doing so, knowing that they're unlikely to be questioned when trying to access those spaces. It's the security as layers of swiss cheese analogy - no layer is impenetrable, and bad actors will always be looking for a way though, but the purpose of having multiple layers is to increase the difficulty of breaking through and discourage attempts.

But yes, even if there was a way to make toilets mixed sex and make that completely safe (there isn't), it would still be a violation of the privacy of both sexes and is something that hardly anyone wants, so we shouldn't be doing it.

What's with the odd wording in the title? Shouldn't it be:

Man follows woman into toilet, attempts rape

Under self-id, he would be perfectly entitled to follow her in there and she would be socially 'obliged' not to question whether he belonged there simply because he appeared male-bodied and she felt uncomfortable.
Its just one more example of how women's boundaries are being eroded.

It was a “ladies “ toilet and that didn’t stop him going in.

No single safeguard is (or should be) expected to remove all risk from predatory males.
We dont remove parts of the Safeguarding framework we add to it to further reduce known risks.

What's with the odd wording in the title? Shouldn't it be:

Man follows woman into toilet, attempts rape

Well, it's both. It's a fact that he demanded sex.
But demanding sex is also attempted rape.