Ladies and Gents loos to return!

[Theluggage15]

In the Telegraph: Return of ladies and gents lavatories, as ministers tell architects all new buildings must have separate facilities
Buildings which already had unisex lavatories, which are shared by men and women, also face having to install partitions.

‘These changes will help to maintain safeguards that protect women and the proper provision of separate toilets, which has long been a regulatory requirement, will be retained and improved.‘

Apologies I don’t know how to do share tokens. This is great news!

I wonder if Liverpool City Council will offer a statement on this issue?

(Answer: Unlikely)

liverpoolresisters.wordpress.com/2018/09/25/a-woman-speaks/

The only reason I like a unisex toilet is that I have boys at that tricky age where they're too old for the ladies, but I worry about them alone in the mens (at least I can send them in together, but I still worry - their problem solving skills aren't exactly brilliant yet, and the stalls are often disgusting/broken in mens toilets apparently)

If it's me alone, I absolutely prefer single sex, and single sex over individual toilets too, because in my experience unisex toilets, unless very well cleaned, end up stinking like the mens.

The only reason I like a unisex toilet is that I have boys at that tricky age where they're too old for the ladies

Indeed. There are a number of good reasons for adding unisex provisions alongside single sex options, and this actually would be progressive. This also takes away the whole 'it would be outing to use a unisex option' fear.

Anyone got a share token? www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/15/exclusive-return-ladies-gents-lavatories-ministers-tell-architects/

Thanks @YourSexNotGenderIsOnFire
I will ask her about what the toilets are actually like, she hasn’t been in the new office yet. She was just very fed up when she said to her boss that it would be great to have nice ladies loos as the ones at their old place were very dingy and was told oh there’s no ladies loos, they’re all gender neutral.

@Justhadathought

Why don’t you think people don’t like unisex toilets? I think women in particular don’t like them. Are you saying you think most prefer to share facilities with men

i'm not sure if this post was directed to me/my post?

I think it is obvious that women do not like having to share mixed sex facilities with men in most intimate circumstances. I'm amazed that anyone would suggest that people might actively prefer them.

I was citing your post where you had responded to another poster who had said that most men and women don’t prefer unisex facilities. You said that this wasn’t true for women. I presume you misread the original poster.

In the main coridoor of my workplace there's a line of men's/women's toilets and each one is set out in the way that disabled toilets are. So you go in from the coridoor and each one is a small room with a toilet/sink. The women's have sanitary bins and the mens have urinals. I don't know why all new toilets aren't set out this way.

The last time I was in a public restroom a woman was loudly berating another woman for bringing a male in the toilets with her and that it was inappropriate. The male was about 6 years old

Surely separate rooms would be better for all. I'd certainly prefer this in remote places where there's hardly anyone else around.

Adding properly designed cubicles for mixed sex use is great , brilliant for parents.
They're generally fine in small places such as cafes, with low enough throughput to be cleaned often enough, rather than having one for each sex.

But in workplaces and high use environments, they're not optimum and in such places there should be room to do it properly and add more options as required, not remove any.

Of course the thing that made the rush to provide 'gender neutral' loos particularly unacceptable was the relabelling of existing women's, with no physical alteration, and then either leaving the men's alone or ludicrously labelling them 'gender neutral with urinals'.

Agreed I don't want to go into any gender neutral toilet with men using urinals. I really like the separate cubicle rooms though. They'd feel a lot safer in some places than a big room of little cubicles where anyone can follow you in despite what it says on the door.

@Beamur

That's good news. I reckon if the cisgendered (male and female) were asked about gender neutral (unisex) toilets you would get few people preferring them. But it is important that trans people also have safe and appropriate toilets, so I would hope there would be some gender neutral provision as well.

I want access to female sex only, gender neutral toilets. Trying to separate toilets by gender identity would be completely impractical and unnecessary.

Ideally there would, in addition to single sex toilets, be single-occupant toilets available. With space for a carer to come in and help, or to manoeuvere a mobility aid, or to lay out supplies to change a colostomy bag etc.

And it would be lovely if all toilets had good ventilation, adequate lighting, hygienic sinks, were cleaned / checked for damage/blockages/hidden cameras regularly, and perhaps had an attendant you could call if there was an emergency. But of course anything involving staff gets expensive and I would rather have toilets than not.

All restaurants, pubs, theatres, public buildings etc should have to display a sign stating what the situation is with regards lavatories, and when they intend complying with the government regulations. Now that would make a big difference

I remember reading the pre-amble to the government consultation and they were already pointing out all the issues, so I don't think this is a 'not sex but gender issue'. There's certainly plenty of positive movement for those of us of a more GC persuasion.

There is another way this could be enforced - Health & Safety Executive and Trading Standards - both inspect premises. Oooh am feeling even more positive. Best go have a lay down now zzzzzzz

Definitions are important when talking about toilets.

Single sex: cubicles with shared sinks.

Unisex: self contained unit with lockable door, sink, sanitary bin, will open onto a public corridor. Often referred to as disabled toilet.

Mixed sex: cubicles with floor to ceiling doors and shared sinks, also wrongly called gender neutral.

Personally I would only accept single sex or unisex.

Also helpful for women who feel able to ask if faced with no single sex provision where they can go because they cannot access mixed sex facilities. I'm prepared to do that as often as I can on behalf of the women who won't feel able to speak or do anything but quietly manage without access to toilets.

@Unsure33

Very encouraging words from baroness Faulkner in the DM today .

Looks like common sense may be returning.

“Women can challenge transgender activism “

Pink News have reported on this one as well. Their headline is as follows: 'The new head of Britain’s equalities watchdog believes cis [ sic ] women should have the right to express “gender critical” views without being “abused”.

Note "abused" in inverted commas here. I find that telling. The same article also attacks the equalities commission for its intervention in Maya Forstater's appeal case, upholding the view that her assertion that sex matters conflicts with the 'fundamental human rights of others'. They are also angry that Falkner fails to mention the routine harassment faced by members of the trans gender community.

Predictably, the fundamental human rights of women - not least the threats of kerb-stomping, sexual violence and death - don't get a look-in here.

I'd always have argued for the desirability of a third space but this wasn't good enough. Now there's the issue of enforcing the point that sex means sex.

May you live in interesting times.

No evidence that we feel unsafe? My ex literally told me that if they got their way on this I would have no space that he cannot access. The police know these things. How is there no evidence?

Good! Can they now make a start on separate hospital wards for men and women now too?

No evidence that we feel unsafe?

Extremely interesting discussion of lack of evidence of the bleeding obvious not being ethical reasons for liberal decisions in the article UppityPuppity has posted on the Rugby thread.

It quotes an example used in another paper, to the effect of there is no peer reviewed, double blind tested research proving conclusively that jumping from planes without parachutes results in injury or fatality. That does not mean parachutes should be left in storage until sufficient properly assessed evidence of injury and death has been conclusively gathered and analysed.

There's evidence that mixed sex changing rooms actually are less safe than single sex, isn't there? Not merely that women may 'feel' unsafe.

Language around this topic is extremely slippery and the meaning not universal anymore.
My earlier comments have been pretty much misconstrued by everyone who has quoted me!
Let me try again.
I think the majority of men and women prefer single sex toilets. Urinals provide a very efficient use of space but I don't know many men who like them!
But I think that some provision of mixed sex facilities are useful for lots of people. This shouldn't 'out' anybody as literally anyone and everyone could use the mixed sex ones. But people who cannot or would prefer not to use mixed sex facilities are also catered for.

I found an extremely biased article in inews this morning (selection rounded up by apple news, not a mainstream paper but plenty of people will have seen it) which again represents complete unchallenged bias to the point of actual intentionally misleading thought-guidance.

a) 'cis' litters the whole article. Nuff said about respect for female people and the many who find that term contentious, and ensuring to avoid offensive labelling of those who may not so identify. Values therefore rather shallow and in fact politically intentional to serve a specific agenda rather than sincerely held beliefs.

b) The claim that everyone just wants gender neutral toilets. Unsubstantiated, unevidenced, no attempt at all to explore this or prove it, just some group who say 'everyone does', presented as absolute fact. I hereby decree that everyone wants me to be a millionaire. (waits patiently).

c) No mention at all that female people exist who do not want this, and will in fact be excluded if single sex provision is not available. No mention of any kind of the issues for others that this causes, other protected characteristics.

d) The article assures that anyone questioning for a second that gender neutral toilets are Fine And Everyone Wants Them is just the nasty mean govt positioning women against TW and a 'transphobic dogwhistle'. No exploration or attempt to support this. Frankly if other people having different needs or evening mentioning women is a transphobic dogwhistle then the phrase has now been rendered too overused and overstretched to have any meaning any more. It now just does mean 'anything that presents a boundary (or even mentions one) to this political agenda'.

The quality of journalism is becoming so low as to be beyond parody and reaching the point where to release this kind of straight forward one sided politically motivated attempt to hide some facts and steer public opinion should be challenged in court. If there's a fair case to make, make it. If you can't make it without denying that people exist who have different needs (and no, they're not all nasty bluemeanies), that inclusion means everyone including the ones whose needs don't fit well with yours, and just ignoring the inconvenient bits of reality that interfere with your narrative, then it gains the appearance of in fact being known perfectly well by those trying to sell it that it is in fact not a fair case and it isn't ethically supportable.