The Third Space

[Ginnyhip46]

I've noticed a lot of toilets in places in Scotland are now becoming unisex - these tend to be single toilets with an individual lock and they've not been particularly dirty so I've not really minded those. I do not understand why in bigger places there can't be the third space that is unisex - still have a men's, a women's and a unisex so that trans people can have a safe space themselves with an individual lock. Surely this would be a solution that fits more people than shared toilets. Some women or men might prefer the unisex simply because of the single cubicle aspect - my partner was a victim of sexual abuse and he used to get nervous in men's loos himself. It really doesn't have to be so hard to find solutions that don't make women who are scared, feel worse or make trans people feel like they can't go to the bathroom in safety if they think they are more vulnerable than children or women. For crying out loud they can have nice flowers in the unisex loo.

I do not understand why in bigger places there can't be the third space that is unisex

There can be. In some places there already is. Useful for parents with opposite sex kids too - though in really large places parent and child loos can be added to the choice.

The issue is is that transwomen do not want to use 3rd spaces and it makes them feel invalidated as 'women'. And we all know men don't like being told 'no'. Whilst society perpetuates the TWAW ideology we won't be able to move past this. Reclaiming the word 'woman' is the key to resolving this, and making men ensure they provide suitable spaces for they and their transwomen counterparts needs to be the priority.

When we (GC people) let transsexuals such as Debbie Hayton use the women's toilets, at women's events and no one questions it - then we have a problem as well - we are too lenient on this and need to be consistent.

I have no issue with a third space and as pp said its good for parents or carers that are the
oppersite sex.

But, I would not like to see a move away from single sex loos with cubical and communal sinks. Having small single cubiclas with sinks and toilets makes like very difficult for mums with prams and makes for longer ques.

@Alabamawhirly1

I have no issue with a third space and as pp said its good for parents or carers that are the oppersite sex.

But, I would not like to see a move away from single sex loos with cubical and communal sinks. Having small single cubiclas with sinks and toilets makes like very difficult for mums with prams and makes for longer ques.

This is also very true. I definitely don't want the single sex spaces to disappear. But for instance I don't feel safe letting my 10 year old son go to men's loos and he's too old to go to the ladies. Unisex single spaces are the answer for many people, trans or not for many different reasons.

Can this not be something we start saying in our messages with all the extra reasons rather than just "we don't want you on our space" which is offering valid solutions and makes it harder for TRA's to push back without sounding more unreasonable and aggressive than they already do?

I would also add to that "Young girls and women should not be forced to share their space" of course, not backing off from that important message

Having small single cubiclas with sinks and toilets makes like very difficult for mums with prams and makes for longer ques.

That's one of the reasons large places should add P&C rooms - big enough for a pram and a few kids. Some of the large shopping malls eg the Trafford centre have this type of thing already.

Actually, it occurs to me that maybe on MumsNet we should focus on campaigning for better provision for families, people with disabilities, and the upholding of the right of single sex provision for women and let men deal with any other requirements which might exist. We've got enough causes. This should not be our problem to resolve.

Agreed Errol and it's exhausting having to be the ones canvassing for this constantly - men need to deal with it agreed.

Third spaces is an opportunity to provide all kinds of better inclusion for many (and actually much larger groups in terms of percentage of population) as well as people who are trans. This could be a very positive change for inclusion in general, if thought through properly and built in to equality law.

But it does have to go with single sex spaces for females that cannot be identified into. The line is still: do we exclude quite a lot of females from having any provision at all in society (and those females are tax payers too, who have done nothing wrong but be born with female biology) and remove privacy, dignity, safety and the right to be away from the male gaze in order to give male people more freedoms and validation and happiness in their lives? Or do we say no to male people and weather the rage?

That really is the line. There will eventually have to be a 'no', because for some of this lobby, any female anywhere with any kind of provision based on their sex is seen as too much of a threat to tolerate. The longer it is left, the harder it will be. Female people have sex based needs: this has not changed, it will not change. The fact this is a distressing thought to some is not a reason to deny those needs. Balanced and socially and emotionally reasonable people would not demand that one group lose all provision, are excluded and have needs go un met.