London public toilets report

[jumpedintwice]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before - I tried doing a search but couldn't find it. This is the report published last November, following a public consultation on London's public toilets.

I responded to this survey, mentioning women's safety and need for single sex spaces. As far as I can see, there's no mention of women at all in the report, no mention of our dignity, privacy, fear of assaults (except for a general statement that toilets need to be 'safe'), no mention of protecting single sex spaces. But it does mention the needs of the 'small number' of trans people who responded for gender neutral toilets and also quotes Stonewall.

Did anyone else respond to this? It's hard to believe the issue of single sex facilities was so insignificant that those compiling the report decided not to mention it at all.

Thank you Nitro.

Thank you
Was actually feeling quite frustrated-cross with myself for lack of clarity & how lumpy & lumpen that post felt. So am vvv relieved that I managed to communicate more effectively than it feels I did.

I'm sorry but this is absolute cobblers.

We have a unisex toilet, required in all public places. They are not used commonly, and they are appointed with the facilities to cater to any and all who need special toilet arrangements. There are vanishingly few trans people in our society, fewer than disabled people by miles. Adding a few embarassed transpeople will not overload the facilities.

You are arguing, in effect, that trans people need to just suck it up and go in the gents, as a way to punish them for being trans.

That's outrageous.

Transpeople shouldn't be in the ladies, but for gods sake they are human beings.

As a further point - Would you consider someone with surgically reconstructed genitals who has difficulty peeing to be disabled enough to use the disabled loo? If not, why not?

Isn't it horribly ableist to presume that trans is an exclusive category to disabled in any case? If you are someone who takes a battery of pills each day and has been diagnosed with a significant gender disorder, if you were of a mind to argue for it you probably count as disabled anyway.

There are vanishingly few trans people in our society, fewer than disabled people by miles. Adding a few embarassed transpeople will not overload the facilities.

Irrelevant. That is the same argument as was used to give away women's rights to facilities for exclusively female use: that there were only ever likely to be about 5000 GRCs issued. Trivial effect on a population of about 30 million women.

We do not have the right to give away other people's rights.

@JennyPourQuoi

As a further point - Would you consider someone with surgically reconstructed genitals who has difficulty peeing to be disabled enough to use the disabled loo? If not, why not?

Isn't it horribly ableist to presume that trans is an exclusive category to disabled in any case? If you are someone who takes a battery of pills each day and has been diagnosed with a significant gender disorder, if you were of a mind to argue for it you probably count as disabled anyway.

True, but not the case for the vast majority of trans people.

I am sure the campaigners who worked so hard to achieve facilities for disabled people would be only too happy to advise trans people about how to campaign for additional mixed sex toilets.

Having accessible, ladies, mens AND 'everyone' toilets is the obvious solution. There are other groups that benefit from mixed sex toilets (fathers and daughters, mothers with sons, those who are with a carer but not disabled...).

But.. thats probably too obvious for many.

08:08 JennyPourQuoi

I can't believe the arrogance of this post!
I'm sure I'm not the only one.

You're now trying to say "ah, but what if a transperson was disabled? Gotcha"
Yeah, obviously disabled people need to access disabled loos/disabled seats on trains/buses/use the accessibility ramp instead of stairs.

Who do not get to access these spaces are anyone who fancies it or if they have gender dysphoria which is categorically not a disability.

If men are a threat to transwomen in men's spaces, let transpeople sort out their own accessible, gender neutral spaces the same way that disabled people successfully achieved accessible spaces.

It really is that simple.
Disabled spaces are not up for grabs.
Women's spaces are not up for grabs.

It's completely unethical, ignorant and obnoxious to give them away to people they are not meant for.

JellySaurus brava!

I am a non wheelchair using disabled woman, who has been assessed as needing a blue badge due to poor mobility. I only use the accessible toilets when necessary out of respect for wheelchair users and their carers.

Advocating for able-bodied people to use the accessible facilities for whatever reason with the argument it makes little difference to disabled people is insulting and categorically untrue. For example, some people with disabilities need to use the toilet urgently and with little warning of that urgency. An able-bodied person clogging up an accessible toilet could result in a disabled person soiling themselves.

Women’s facilities and disabled facilities were both campaigned and hard won for exclusive use of people sharing the same protected characteristic. They were neither designed nor designated for anyone other than people from those two protected groups.

One is a facility for the privacy, security, dignity and safety of women and the other is for the privacy, security, dignity and safety of disabled people. The rights of these two protected groups are neither to be given away nor to be taken.

Nitro - fantastic post.

An obvious solution to transpeople being embarrassed in the toilets which match their sex is for lobbying and campaigning organisations (such as Stonewall) to push for 'third spaces' in new build public buildings, in the same way that disability rights organisations fought for accessible toilets. This would also be advantageous for other groups (parents with opposite sex children over the age of 8, baby changing facilities, etc etc). As a pp said, baby changing facilities have just been dumped I to accessible toilets for convenience - this would offer a better space.

Stonewall could have used their considerable power and money to do this. They chose instead to campaign to erode women's single sex spaces.

There are 600000 people with epilepsy in this country who are some of the many ‘invisible’ disabled. As I said upthread, there are conditions and situations that I or my family have been in where it is safer to be in a toilet where you can easily see someone is in there and can get access to if you collapse behind a locked door. Heart attacks, miscarriages. There are lots of people who have died in public toilets. And then there’s quickly checking the toilets are free in the event of a fire or bomb alert. And then hygiene (wet mop against the doors). The problem is if you have door gaps and mixed sex toilets. Because then safety and privacy are a problem.

Health and safety is a greater right.
Disabled loos for disabled people.
Womens loos for women.

Well said NitroNine.

Niro great post

Or even Nitro!