Interesting experience with public toilets

[Rosalisa]

Presented with just one comment. I had to fly from Scotland to London last week. Bit bleary and unfamiliar with Luton. Inadvertently opened the door to the men's, I was met with horror so backed out, no bother.

Into the women's. Where a man was coming out of a cubicle, short hair, no make-up, t shirt and jeans, beard. Perfectly pleasant but completely unchallenged by anyone including the male attendant.

I think I've been really sheltered in the highlands.

No thank you.

The question we need to be asking is:

In whose interests is it for women to be forced back onto the leash of the bladder?

In OP's situation, I might have marched straight back into the Gents', saying something like,

" Sorry, guys, I'm temporarily identifying as male because there's a man currently in the Ladies' and I don't know why he's there. I know you're just here to pee and so am I and I feel safer peeing here with you."

I bet one or two of them might have gone to persuade the intruder colonist to desist.

@skylark21

Whilst I agree with the point about separate toilets etc I never fail to be amazed at the ridiculous level of man bashing which pops up under just about any subject on MN, for example the implications that any male in the proximity of a female toilet must be an abuser or rapist etc, get real the majority of men do not abuse, assault or rape girls or women and if anyone reading this has experienced this I'm sorry but that is still not a good enough reason for what appears to be anti male hate, I was as a young man sexually assaulted by an older woman, it does not mean that I judge all women in that light.

I disagree with you there, even though I too am a man who has on one occasion been groped by an older woman.

We're not talking about "in the proximity", this was apparently a man who had actually been in the women's toilets.

I'm not a sex offender. I would never assault someone, it's not something I'd be capable of. However, I realise that I cannot expect a stranger to know that, so I never let them be in a position to worry. Many women (such as some of those on this thread) have been the victim of sexual assaults far more serious than the minor groping I once experienced. I do not know what exactly you experienced but I would hazard a guess that it too does not come to the level of the multiple rapes some on this thread have experienced. Many of those victims of serious sexual assaults will be suffering from PTSD which can cause an apparently disproportionate reaction to situations you or I may consider trivial.

90% of the people I might walk past late at night in a city are not going to mug me. I'm still not going to take chances in case I come across the 10% though. My heart will still be racing if someone approaches.

@Feelingoktoday

So no women’s only toilets? You are ok with the men having access to 6 toilets but women only 4!

That's not how it works out as a whole, though. There are only so many patrons no matter the numbers of toilets.

The men could use six, but lots will choose the urinals if they can, which takes them out of the lines for the other stalls, and urinal visits are typically quicker as well. So those men are no longer in the lines for the standard toilets.

If you had separate male and female single toilets though, at least some of the time some of them would be unused, while there was a line for the ones with the other designation - even though they are identical. Usually that means there are open mens stalls while women are waiting in line.

So it's a less efficient use of the stalls, with no increase in privacy. Often in that scenario the waiting women just use the empty mens anyway.

I visited Arundel Castle the other week. Outside the entrance in a public car park there are public toilets. Self contained rooms opening out to the car park. There were approx 4 mixed sex, 2 men’s (urinals only) and 2 disabled toilets. So we are already there.
If the men had access to single-sex toilets but the women didn't, surely that's an open and shut case of discrimination, no? Would've been different if they were all mixed sex.

@DdraigGoch

I visited Arundel Castle the other week. Outside the entrance in a public car park there are public toilets. Self contained rooms opening out to the car park. There were approx 4 mixed sex, 2 men’s (urinals only) and 2 disabled toilets. So we are already there. If the men had access to single-sex toilets but the women didn't, surely that's an open and shut case of discrimination, no? Would've been different if they were all mixed sex.

To add to that though, as they're self-contained (so unisex, rather than mixed-sex, the difference being 'one at a time') the only discrimination issue I can see is if the number of toilets provided is not enough for the number of customers, then forcing women to queue while the men churn quickly through the urinals.

@DdraigGoch

I visited Arundel Castle the other week. Outside the entrance in a public car park there are public toilets. Self contained rooms opening out to the car park. There were approx 4 mixed sex, 2 men’s (urinals only) and 2 disabled toilets. So we are already there. If the men had access to single-sex toilets but the women didn't, surely that's an open and shut case of discrimination, no? Would've been different if they were all mixed sex.

No it isn't. As explained the availability of urinals means men will choose them freeing up the others.

It is discrimination. If a coachload of women arrives & they all hit the loos, a man who wanders up will be able to use the urinals which will be empty.

OTOH, if a coachload of men arrives & they all hit the loos, a woman who walks up will have to wait behind a long queue of men who will be using all six facilities.

If there were two female-only cubicles to match the two urinal facilities, the situation would be fairer.

It's also going to get to the point where mens loos are safer, because men that wish to abuse women will be in the women's loo.

I know. It's beyond crazy.

I'd like to think I would challenge a man in the women's loos. But in reality I don't know if I would think quickly enough, or feel safe to challenge someone who is obviously up for a confrontation, or feel too embarrassed or humiliated. And so they get away with it.

Can I just say, apropos to the earlier disputation and minimizing of women's responses to being alone with men - it is useful to remember that the debate around single sex spaces on FWR comes from a specifically Feminist perspective, not a more broad 'GC' one.

You may well support single sex spaces. There are all sorts of reasons for doing so, and I am pragmatic enough to work alongside those I will disagree with on other issues to make sure women's rights and protections are retained and strengthened.

But if you minimize the reasons why a woman would need and want a single sex space, you don't get the argument here, so while I'll be quite happy for you to lobby whomever is necessary to keep single sex provision, if you come to a feminist space and show callous disregard for why women want and need our spaces, be prepared to meet with a response that will disregard your support for single sex spaces. Because you don't get it at all, which actually makes you a bit of a liability because I'd fully expect you to compromise on the important stuff if you were pushed.

it is so very obviously discriminatory to offer more access to facilities for one sex than the other, that can’t believe those questioning it are being serious. We make up 50% of the population, we should have access to at least 50% of any and all available loos, actually more, because we have typically periods, pregnancy, baby changing, and even breastfeeding etc to contend with in there. Lucky us that the presence of extra urinals free up a few loos up for us, you know what else would free up more loos for us? More loos.
FFS.

@NCwhatsmynameagain

it is so very obviously discriminatory to offer more access to facilities for one sex than the other, that can’t believe those questioning it are being serious. We make up 50% of the population, we should have access to at least 50% of any and all available loos, actually more, because we have typically periods, pregnancy, baby changing, and even breastfeeding etc to contend with in there. Lucky us that the presence of extra urinals free up a few loos up for us, you know what else would free up more loos for us? More loos. FFS.

Oh for goodness sake- you are being ridiculous in the situation described at Arundel.

And who breast feeds in a public toilet?

Oh it was definitely not a transman. I could tell by the throat and bulge. We do seem to have this ability. Men just see tits on transwomen and think "female".

Yes I have underlying conditions too. I've been sexually assaulted many times and almost beaten to death. By men. Women's spaces were a refuge. We don't "just want to pee" in them. We hide from predators in them. We miscarry. We deal with menstruation.

And aye, I was dressed the same way, no makeup, mask, hair back, but the men in the men's loos knew immediately I wasn't meant to be there.

@KimikosNightmare no I’m not being ridiculous. This is not a standalone situation. And many many many women have breastfed in public toilets, not feeling confident enough to do it in public and/or being in places that lacked specific breastfeeding facilities- I don’t believe that very obvious basic fact has eluded you all these years.
There are no circumstances where it’s acceptable for men to have greater access to toilets than women, ever.

Fewer toilets for women are doubly discriminatory as men use toilets less than women.

"is"

And who breast feeds in a public toilet?

Great YouTube clip. Thanks for post Arabella

And here's a survey - apols for Guardian link.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/21/third-of-breastfeeding-mothers-forced-to-use-toilet-to-express-milk-at-work

'One in three breastfeeding mothers have been forced to use a toilet to express milk after they return to work, according to a survey.'

It occurs to me the 'we just want to pee' is so staggeringly crass partly because women need and want to do much more than 'just pee' in toilets. Clearly the people who use that line have no experience of the various bodily processes that exclusively female bodies experience that require extra privacy, space and often time to deal with. Maybe this is why it's seen as 'no big deal' for males - they really do just use toilets (or bushes, or roadsides, or lampposts) to pee, while women have periods, miscarriages, breastfeeding, expressing, menopause, higher rates of incontinence, etc, to deal with for much of their adult lives.

Maybe the 'toilets' is a bit of a misdirection. It's not so much that women require toilets, we require private spaces. For so many reasons. Toilets are just a handy coincidence.

'mare - RTFT where it's explained. It's also simple maths: 6 toilets of which two are men only while none is women only is discriminatory. More provision for the sex which has less need of that provision is privilege. Maybe you're too used to it to see it.

Anybody know where this type of design originated? The combo seems to be a recent thing.

Queues for the Ladies' loo are always longer because men can stand to pee. It takes a mammal approximately 21 seconds to empty its full bladder. Women take more time freeing up the urethra, wiping, and rearranging clothing. It's anatomy.

DD, a teacher, travels with a she-wee funnel to speed things up. If I had one, I'd happily stand alongside men at a urinal if there was a long queue for the Ladies'. It's time, I think.

As for challenging a man in the Ladies', I would currently be confident to ask if he's lost his way and challenge if he seemed to be lurking. But the way things are going, if organisations make it a free for all, we won't have the option to ask or challenge any more!