Express and Star article - head of British Toilet Association pushing for mixed loos

[Fenlandmountainrescue]

Apparently, in order to get us all back shopping again, it is essential that we should all share toilets. Because that is cleaner?

If keeping spaces single sex is a good thing the argument shouldn't need to be propped up by special religious pleading.

Ok, then NO, I don’t want my daughter or I to share with men, because they are the sex most likely to intimidate, sexually assault women, up skirt, plant hidden cameras in female spaces, rape, cat call, harass, etc. I want my right to privacy, dignity and safety, or even feelings of safety maintained. I want my previously abused daughter to be able to use female spaces, without the fear of males being in there. I want to be able to go into a cubicle and change her sanitary wear, without men overhearing our discussion.

I want my right to say “no!” to being bullied and cajoled into sharing those spaces, to be enough of a reason. If a man or woman tried to manipulate, plead and guilt a female into accepting that they have no right to perform intimidate care without a man being in close vicinity would be called a groomer, under any other circumstances.

without a man being in close vicinity *they would be called a groomer, under any other circumstances.

If anybody wants to argue that somehow women from a particular religion will get extra told off, shunned or harmed by others of that religion if they use mixed sex facilities, that is the precise opposite of an argument in favour of helping women obey those religious rules.

But this is not the argument. The argument is that a woman from such a culture are yet more sensitive to the presence of men in their private spaces and would simply not enter them -- whether on not males from her religion knew about it or not.

sky fairy
Why do some atheists descend into this kind of irrelevant cliche?

The argument is that a woman from such a culture are yet more sensitive to the presence of men in their private spaces and would simply not enter them -- whether on not males from her religion knew about it or not

That's still irrelevant as to whether objectively single sex spaces are needed. This board regularly posits the view that "feelz" should not inform law or policy.

I do not think religious sentiments should have more weight than the fact that women want women only spaces. In fact "I want women only spaces." is a complete sentence and does not require further explanation.

My concern is not "feelz" but the fact that if female only spaces didn't exist, some women would not be able to leave the house, not by their own choice necessarily.

And no it isn't the only reason or the most compelling reason for female only spaces, just one element of why they are needed.

I give you the list of the Honorary President, managing director and committee members of the British Toilet Association.

All male, men and one transwoman. I haven't looked much further into their motivations, might be worth a further dig if anyone has the time/resources as a way to combat their lobbying for gender neutral loos:

www.btaloos.co.uk/?page_id=7

The BTA's 100 members seem to have raised their committee (not sure how, it doesn't mention elections) in 2016 and their last news was last November. There is also another website that fizzled out www.casuallyplanned.co.uk/ around 2012.

They do have an advert for the event "Femmes et WC" which may explain why a certain poster is nipping over to France to spend a penny

There are good arguments why enclosed unisex toilets don't work for many women. I don't think he's bothering to think about those, but am open to changing my mind.

I'm hoping the posters who don't agree with fully enclosed, single sex facilities could help me understand why (this is a genuine, polite question). Because this often works better for my in many scenarios- if I have my 2 very young children with me and need more space, if I want to change my mooncup when I'm out (which I try never to do because it's so messy). Most coffee shops have a couple of unisex WCs- do people not use these because men also use them? Genuinely curious.

Sorry I mean if you don't like the idea of fully enclosed unisex facilities, would you mind explaining why

I'm an atheist, living in a Muslim country. I think privacy, dignity & safety plus I don't bloody want to share toilets with men are quite sufficient reasons for single sex provision.

But I wouldn't dismiss the fact that for practically every other woman in the country her reasons would be 'all of the above AND it is not acceptable in my religion or my culture'.

Yep. The fact that for some women their religion adds an extra layer of "nope, this is not acceptable" isn't the reason, it's one of many reasons why mixed sex toilets are not acceptable, and changing rooms even less so. "But they're OK with it in Sweden/France" is in itself a form of special pleading, as those are also different cultures with their own set of cultural rules around nudity etc that are not shared by most of the people in the UK.

some women would not be able to leave the house, not by their own choice necessarily.

Then that’s the problem with a religion that subjugates and controls women, not with the law abiding people who use the toilets.

I'm hoping the posters who don't agree with fully enclosed, single sex facilities could help me understand why (this is a genuine, polite question). Because this often works better for my in many scenarios- if I have my 2 very young children with me and need more space, if I want to change my mooncup when I'm out (which I try never to do because it's so messy). Most coffee shops have a couple of unisex WCs- do people not use these because men also use them? Genuinely curious.

Those sorts of toilets are good because you can take the kids and/or a pram in with you, and I think when new toilets are built they should offer at least one of those alongside disabled toilets.

But in general I don't like them. I find the ques much longer because you have to wait for people to go toilet and wash and dry their hands. Im also still having to share the space with males who 50% of the time piss everywhere. I also find those toilets are always smelly and messy. I think because they are enclosed and because people tend to use them to poo because they are single units. I also feel obliged to be in and out quick and not check hair or makeup because I'm conscious others may be waiting to use the toilet.

The toilets we have now are fine. Single sex, bank of sinks and then several cubicles of toilets. Then add a family toilet, nappy change toilet and disabled toilets.

Sorry I mean if you don't like the idea of fully enclosedunisex
facilities, would you mind explaining why

This has been done to death.

I for one am sick of explaining anything. Why should we explain?
Single sex is either a good thing or a bad thing.
If we get unisex loos, prisons, sports etc, then we wont get single sex loos prisons and sports etc back for a very long time. If ever.

Thank you Heather for your explanation. I can definitely understand some of those concerns even if I don't personally share them.

As for this -

^This has been done to death.

I for one am sick of explaining anything. Why should we explain?^

Has it? Well then I apologise. I am a frequent user of this board but don't engage much on the toilets issue. However "why should I explain/do you own research/how dare you ask us to do your labour for you" etc is the constant online call of the woke and it gets us nowhere if people can't actually ask genuine questions/discuss issues and are simply met with hostility.

There's also the question of how the unisex, single user loos are designed and laid out. I've seen both relatively large rooms with a grab rail for wheelchair users and enough space to navigate a chair or take in a stroller and another child who can walk by themselves too, and I've also seen poky little stalls that are barely big enough for a relatively slim person with no grab rails and definitely no room to take anything in with you (the latter was in a fancy restaurant, there was a row of them). The former might work for most, the latter definitely wouldn't work for many.

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

I know the type you're referring to and if we were to move to enclosed unisex, those are what we would get. Where your knees are under the sink. It wouldn't be lots of big cubicles.

Has it? Well then I apologise. I am a frequent user of this board but don't engage much on the toilets issue. However "why should I explain/do you own research/how dare you ask us to do your labour for you" etc is the constant online call of the woke and it gets us nowhere if people can't actually ask genuine questions/discuss
issues and are simply met with hostility

Who was being hostile? I have had enough trying to explain why. If someone else wants to try then fine, but its often a lost cause. We get asked over and over to justify our gc position, when really we dont need to. The men who want the access should justify why they need it.

There are as has been pointed out by many others who disagree with gc about a billion threads on this subject now.
Most of which are helpfully named.

That would be my fear, that space constraints and money would inevitably result in spaces that just won't work for anyone who has a wheelchair or kids with them or even just a bunch of shopping bags. The ones in the restaurant worked for me, but I was alone with nothing to carry, and even then I occurred to me that they might be difficult to navigate after a few more drinks.

Well at least now if there is no buggy accessible loo you can leave the buggy just outside the cubical door with the door open a crack.

I would not be doing that if there were men in the communal space. Not for my privacy or my kids safety.

And if it was all tiny cubicals what do you do? You can't leave the buggy outside with the door shut and you can't leave the door open if it's just into a open public space.

Which again is why the system we currently have is probably the one that works for the greatest number of people. The number of women who would be inconvenienced by a change to either unisex shared (totally unacceptable in most countries) or unisex single user (would work for some but not others) is vastly greater than the number of trans people who refuse to use the facilities designated for their sex plus those raising objections based on having to accompany people in their care above.

Well at least now if there is no buggy accessible loo you can leave the buggy just outside the cubical door with the door open a crack.

This is a good point and something I hadn't considered. While I always prefer private facilities, I can see that what we would likely end up with would probably be small, cramped and less than ideal, rather than what I'm picturing in my head.

some women would not be able to leave the house, not by their own choice necessarily.

Then that’s the problem with a religion that subjugates and controls women, not with the law abiding people who use the toilets.

Women in abusive and controlling relationships are often prevented from using mixed sex facilities, not just religious women.

The BTA's push for gender neutral toilets may simply be a financial/capitalist one. Like WPATH it is a corporate organisation. How do you sell more toilets and air dryers? By getting more toilets and all existing toilets to be refitted.

As with WPATH and other corporate organisations, the needs and wants of the membership will overrule any public or health needs.

That these lobbying groups seem to be gaining traction is indicative of the failures in British democracy.

Public health and services should not be informed by industry lobby groups!

I wonder if they are responsible for the ‘Parisian style’ outdoor urinals that I’ve seen? They are grim.