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?

So many mainly women inconvenienced by toilets that don't cater to the mainly women who are carers of children and others and so little is done. Yet, some men call for unisex toilets because of those who are trans or who otherwise describe themselves as the sex they were not born as (and it is mainly born-men who want access to women's spaces), or they want to be able to jerk off imagining a naked woman peeing in the next cubical and the world MOVES. Yet as far as I can see it still isn't moving towards catering for women who have small children or who provide care for others.

Which again is why the system we currently have is probably the one that works for the greatest number of people.

Which is the priority of public provision.

Then you provide the additional to and different from resources on top of that system. That's your inclusion.

Inclusiveness is not achieved by changing practice to something which excludes groups currently met by the provision. Inclusiveness does not actually mean 'making the political trans lobby happy'. Inclusiveness certainly doesn't mean changing female provision to something that doesn't meet the needs of many females and means some females now have no provision at all, so that a few males can be happier with more choice.

There's another paragraph I've typed and found myself wondering why the hell is anyone having to spell this out in small words?!

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

Taking away those women's few choices doesn't make her family's religion magically change. One could make the same argument about DV refuges: that women shouldn't need refuges because men shouldn't abuse. And it would be an equally ridiculous stance.

Oh I remember that argument! It was by a certain Women's Officer who said if someone's religion meant having boundaries against males and being difficult about letting males do whatever they wanted, then the women should just stop having that religion. Now. Because politically incorrect and stuff.

No grip on reality whatsoever, and pretty sure that WO had never spoken to any Islamic group or council or had the faintest experience of knowing people in the situation they were so casually hurling aside.

But continued evidence of very privileged and fantastically self centred and selfish male people without the faintest grasp of the realities of females, no interest in their needs or in listening to females, just demanding females enable them. While identifying as women. But a special sort of woman that has a say, is listened to, whose needs are cared about, who's feelings are important, whose lived experience matters, whose beliefs must be respected, who female people must centre and seek to please at all times ..... is male, in other words.

Honestly. Do you laugh or cry.

yes, sorry -

who's going to tell the Islamic councils and leaders, Orthodox Jewish leaders, Jehovah's Witness leaders et al that they have to shut up shop and stop having a religion now?

Because some vague stuff about subjugation of women that never mattered at all when only women minded, but most importantly it's getting in the way of very important males doing whatever they want to control females and female spaces. In a highly subjugating but much more politically correct way.

Apostasy is punishable by state execution in some Muslim countries and will result in anything from shunning to "honour" murder elsewhere. Quitting Islam is not consequence-free. Excluding Muslim women from public life is not a feminist act. But then we knew already that the individual in question is a male privilege activist.

In case anyone missed it, here is the link to a debate in the Lords on this very issue. This contribution from Baroness Grey-Thompson is worth highlighting but I recommend reading the whole debate:

"If there is somebody in an accessible toilet who needs to be in there for a long period of time, the only other option I have is to use the women’s toilet. In that instance, I have to go with the door open. I am not sure whether I have publicly declared this before, but I am incontinent; I have to catheterise. I have to sit with my chair in the door of the toilet. Without going into the details, I am in a potentially vulnerable position when I catheterise myself. I need to wash my hands before and straight afterwards; it is even more difficult when I have my period. My biggest fear is that someone will run away with my chair for a bit of a laugh. As a disabled person, that is a very vulnerable position to be in."

hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-02-24/debates/D9459D1B-FADF-4765-AB3F-F55D4B322060/details

Apart from the initial statement - which I agree wholeheartedly with - the whole of the rest of that was an attempt to stuff the needs of females out of sight and virtue signal about poor, poor males.

I thought that statement was very brave and honest of her, MrsSnippy

The whole of Lord Lucas's original question demonstrates that he understands women's needs.

Tanni's statement demonstrates why we need an appointed second chamber. An elected second chamber would be full of the same career politicians as the first, not a diverse collection of non-political people including former wheelchair athletes who use catheters.