Westminster Prof. lectures companies of removing single sex spaces

[OhHolyJesus]

How is this allowed?

twitter.com/catterall_pp/status/1412023872937992197?s=21

Who is this for?

I can take a guess who it's for. Clue: it's not for women. 😡

Oh interesting.

so, it has become a 'nursing' space now? Is there enough space to accommodate every one feeding a baby via whatever means. If so, fine. If not, then it has been exclusionary to the original purpose.

And I disagree with Margaret Middleton. I do not look forward to a future with all toilets are all-gender accessible. Unless the cubicles are enlarged to fit strollers and prams properly. Because, until such times that happens or every single building has a family bathroom, all-gender accessible toilets remove any privacy for a mother dealing with flooding periods and children in prams of any sort.

US surely, we don't use the term 'rest room'. Unsure why this term is used. I wouldn't want to rest in a toilet

I went into an all gender restroom at the weekend at an art gallery. There were three entrances, one saying two cubicles and one saying five cubicles. The third one was disabled and baby changing (I don't think it said nursing or I might have gone in to ask for a plaster for my blister)

I stood outside making a mental assessment about which one the men were likely to choose and I decided that they were more likely to use the two cubicle one.
I walked in the five cubicles one and a woman at the sink jerked her head around immediately to check out who had come in.

Wonderful future. Dipshit.

Male prof with female name lectures people on making everything gender-inclusive. There's a surprise.

Because they are clueless about female experiences, probably.

Lightbulb moment. This is a way to get around the government saying that all new build loos must have single sex facilities and that older ones must now have a partition.. If you slyly use the labelling to confuse, you can then say it was the woman's choice and not them imposing gender neutral. Sh*ts - this is what we've been up against

I was especially consider about the 'gendered elevator', otherwise known as 'the lift' in the U.K. (has Westminster adopted US language along with 'inclusive' language?)

I was confused because...

A loft is for people, all people, it's not a 'gendered' single sex space

The sign used shows male and female figures - is this person's problem because there is no 'non binary' representation? If that's the case then it also doesn't show babies, children or disabled people, but that doesn't appear to be a concern.

I don't ever see signs like this to indicate that it's a lift. Do posters in the US see these? It's just not relevant in Westminster, is it?

*confused - not consider

Sneaky!

The signs are good. There is no reason, for example, that baby care should be gendered. And the functions they describe are clearer than the ones they are proposed to replace.

It's the wording that's the issue in some cases. And the fact that they are intended to be used instead of, rather than to supplement, signs that do indicate sex-differentiation.

Male prof with female name lectures people on making everything gender-inclusive. There's a surprise.

Because they know exactly what females need, of course. Silly. They can advise the government what females need too. Because they know from experience.

@Helleofabore

Male prof with female name lectures people on making everything gender-inclusive. There's a surprise.

Because they know exactly what females need, of course. Silly. They can advise the government what females need too. Because they know from experience.

I doubt they know or care what females need.

True jellyslice, true.

@OhHolyJesus An Australian here. We use the lift sign here that has the man and woman figures in it.

Is there a sign for a safe place to leave your drinks.

I mean I always took mine into the ladies with me and stuck it on the windowsill.

But where do I leave it now

Thanks Feral, it may be a universal symbol I'm not aware of but it's not offensive is it, if trans women are women they are represented by the symbol wearing a dress, same for trans men and the symbol of a figure in trousers (or lacking trousers, I've never been sure). I mean stereotypes aside it is just a symbol and yes we ca have ^ as a lift sign. Pretty simple to fix and I imagine this is a distraction...

The sign with both symbols indicates it's a mixed sex/unisex space. Is it the sex part that offends? I'm just confused and probably spectacularly missing the pint, this was just one point that seemed totally irrelevant to me.

FWIW I think @highame has it. This is a Westminster professor seeking to confuse and I find it worrying as I do strange.

Perhaps more worrying as this Professor is, well...I'll stop there.

@OhHolyJesus I've honestly never thought about it. To me it's a sign that shows people using a lift. That's all I've ever interpreted it as. I mean, it doesn't include people in wheelchairs, or babies in prams, or children, but they all use it too.

I really hope that Australia doesn't drink the Kool-Aid on unisex toilets and keeps them sex segregated like they are currently. I'm wary enough that the brand new building at my DD's school has only one student toilet per level and of course it will be unisex/gender neutral or whatever the term is. I'm sure that they could have fit two toilets in the space available. This was a detail they didn't reveal to parents until after it was built. This building will be predominantly for children in upper primary school so some girls will be dealing with periods. I'm sure they'd rather do that in a space that doesn't have pee on the seat or general boy grossness about it. I guess the girls can go and use the senior girls' toilets in the main part of the school to have better privacy.

The most unfair way of dividing toilet provision is by "standing" and "sitting and standing" (aka known as "urinals" and "cubicles").

More honest signage would be "men only" and "everyone", leaving women once again disadvantaged, regardless of safety/privacy element

I'm in Ireland where traditional loos are being renamed all over the place. Changing door signage is the cheapest way to disadvantage women and children - my local public loos are now "gender neutral with urinals" and "gender neutral". Guess which one has queues?

Twitter profile includes the descriptor

'girly swot'

Ffs

Where's the picture of a urinal?

@JellySlice

Sneaky!

The signs are good. There is no reason, for example, that baby care should be gendered. And the functions they describe are clearer than the ones they are proposed to replace.

It's the wording that's the issue in some cases. And the fact that they are intended to be used instead of, rather than to supplement, signs that do indicate sex-differentiation.

I agree that some of them are pretty good.

The thing is the reason behind changing them, though.

But WHERE IS THE URINAL sign fgs.

@NiceGerbil Here you go. Urinals from the website referred to in the Twitter link. thenounproject.com/search/?q=urinal

@FeralWoman, there are some “direct” signs at that link.

I particularly like this one.

The peeping tom page is good, too.

Cool!

Why not include it under the bog one on the tweet in the OP though?

Can't quite fathom how or why 'nursing' is more gender inclusive than "breastfeeding."

If 'nursing' is meant to include bottle-feeding, why has this never arisen to accommodate the many fathers who feed their babies? And why on earth would a separate room be needed for it? Would the room be allowed to include a breast pump, or would that be non-inclusive?

And if men can in theory breastfeed with the help of domperidone, then what's the problem with 'breastfeeding'?