Can we lay this to rest, once and for all?

[HelenaWaiting]

I'm disabled. I have MS and a congenital heart condition. I'm wheelchair dependent. Only if you are disabled or a carer do you understand how difficult it is to find a disabled toilet (there is always just one), how disappointing it is to find that toilet occupied, and how infuriating to discover that the occupant was some twat trying on a dress. So please, please stop saying "trans people can use disabled toilets". I've been fielding that particular curve ball for years but now we have Kemi Fucking Badenoch saying it. (No, she's not great. No she's not on our side. She's an entitled, vacuous, talent-free zone. She just happens to be a gender critical entitled, vacuous, talent-free zone). I can't wait for the loo as long as you can. I don't get as much warning as you. I can't hold onto it as efficiently as you. And I have no desire to piss myself in a shopping centre because some hulking great bloke in an ill-fitting dress is touching up his make-up. Disabled people campaigned for years for accessible toilets. There still aren't enough of them. Please don't hand them over to a group of people who have chosen to have a problem.

This!

Also there is an ambulant toilet which is a toilet with handrails that is for frailer people but those who can walk. There are regs for having ambulant toilets too. This frees up the disabled/accessible toilet to be used for those who need the features it provides.

How is it safer for them?

Even one time is too often.
Men are perfectly able to try dresses on at home.

I am confused as to what the REAL issues are....

My understanding is that only one person in 500 is trans (ie 0.2% from last census). Many of these will start using the appropriate single sex toilets. This we need to encourage, given it is now the law.

Which leaves the tiniest number wanting to use the disabled loos... is this really significant???

What does feel significant is if the disabled/accessible toilet is ALSO labelled Gender-Neutral because it does imply ANYONE can use it... it is almost an invitation. This surely is what we need to discourage? Understandably women waiting in outrageously long queues will dash in if this is how it is labelled.

I can understand that in certain places - eg schools and unis, given they have a higher number of gender-confused young - would need additional Fourth spaces ie gender neutral ... and possibly arts/theatre venues given they've drunk the Kool Aid.... but for most??? Why on earth do we need special toilets for such a tiny number of people, however loud they shout?

We don’t.

My research indicates that women and girls don’t like facilities labelled gender neutral as they are dirtier and unsafe so gravitate back to the women’s.

The issue would be if the person was unable to reasonably go into either the men's or women's loos. In that case, if their transsexual status was caused by serious psychological issues, it's a medical problem that requires separate toilets.

Sorry, I don't get this - how does a psychological issue, which does not require used of the disabled/adapted toilet, require separate toilets?

Is this extended to all psychological issues? or just the tiny number of people who think they are not the biological sex they are, or cannot accept that fact?

So does that mean a fifth space - men's, women's, disabled, unisex, and whatever they are going to call the 'psychological issues' toilet?

I thought accessible toilets were just another name for disabled toilets?

They are not called ‘disabled toilets’ because that would mean the toilet isn’t working - it has been disabled.

There is some dismissing of mental health issues on this thread. I don’t think disability due to mental health would apply to many of these men at all; they have other motivations. But mental health definitely can be seriously disabling and by itself can be enough to warrant using disabled toilets. To suggest otherwise is to minimise mental ill health.

Does you have to have a physical disability to use them ?
I know an autistic person who does. No physical disability but very severe sensory and MH issues around noise and contamination (especially bodily waste, fluids etc).
Is that ok in your opinion?
(I think it’s okay personally but very interested to hear your perspective.)

Yes, but a pp was claiming there was a difference between accessible and disabled toilets, with everyone able to use the former.
I think that’s not the case usually - unless all the toilets in the building are designed to be accessible for example.
But that’s usually not the case.

A number of disabled people need help from a carer. That career may well be the opposite sex.
And access to the single sex toilets is often unsuitable for wheelchair users.
Also space. The accessible toilet needs to have plenty of space with a sink in the same cubicle

I don't think it's governed by regulations, unless it's a toilet with a radar key.

In general businesses are obliged to make reasonable accommodation, but there is nothing to prevent them having two toilets, one standard and one accessible, and including both in their general toilet provision.

The terminology is a bit of a minefield, isn't it?
'Disabled toilets' were designed for, and intended for, people with disabilities who physically need extra adaptations to be able to use the toilet, and sufficient space to enter and exit the space in a wheelchair, and transfer to the toilet from the side.

So they are 'accessible' meaning wheelchair accessible, specifically, or 'adapted' toilets, which are for the use of people with disabilities who need the extra space, supports, and location at the appropriate height of the facilities.

But they quickly became known as 'Disabled Toilets' - as LesserCelandine points out, they are not 'disabled', they work perfectly well, so technically they should be called 'adapted' or 'accessible' but that ship has sailed: the are known as 'Disabled Toilets'.

I won't go into the issue of who should use 'the disabled toilet', it's such a difficult area, e.g. invisible disabilities, mental health issues etc.

We don't 'police bathrooms', we can't do checks on who is using the women's toilet or the disabled toilet or the men's toilet, it works on trust, so whether or not a person needs to use the 'disabled' toilet is a decision for the individual to make. We just have to trust that people are being respectful in making that decision. That's all we can do.

It can’t. Which is exactly my point about unisex toilets and how they are unsafe. We don’t need more of them.

Single sex ambulant toilets would be also useful as they have a little shelf for people useful to put meds on or to change a bag. There should be an ambulant toilet within bigger single sex toilet blocks. For some reason they are often on the ends of a row so tell them to look out for this.

Mens toilets should have bigger sanitary bins for those with prostrate problems to dispose of sanitary wear. There’s a Boys need Bins campaign that promotes this.

People with mental health problems should be in toilets where they can be seen if they end up on the floor and heard if they are self harming.

They are not best served by a private, more soundproof, unisex design.

Edit: The only way single sex design keeps the gaps, is when it is single sex. When it is more ambiguous, the gaps go as people value privacy when it isn’t actually single sex.

Mental health ‘problems’ does not mean they will self harm and those who self-harm don’t scream whilst they are doing it. They are also not more likely to end up on the floor than a wheelchair user, though if they did they are likely to find it a lot easier to get back up. The need for a someone suffering from mental ill-health to use an accessible toilet would arise from their inability to cope with a room containing cubicles perhaps due to the need for a private space without gaps under the door.

(Though I agree that single sex spaces with gaps under the door offer more safety to people generally)

Bit of a detour but...

I'm actually amazed - shocked I tell you - that the businesses that fly the progress pride flag hard every June haven't immediately put plans for their fourth spaces in place following the SC judgement & advertised it widely to the demographic which was absolutely, totally the most closest & dearest to their hearts all this time.

It's almost as if, now it's going to actually cost them money, instead grifting the pink&blue pound through the flogging of rainbow shopping bags, pride branded items or whatever, that these stalwart allies are not actually falling over themselves to immediately assure the most oppressed minority in the land that they WILL have appropriate fourth space facilities in all.their stores ASAP.

I've had a google & nothing from Tesco, Sainsbury's, m&S, Wickes...

Silence.

I agree it works on trust.

We need people to be respectful to the person who has made the decision as well.

All too often assumptions are made that someone doesn’t need a disabled/accessible facility when they really do. Not thinking about trans people here, more those changing stoma bags for example. In one survey 30% of those with a stoma who responded said they had been challenged regarding toilet use just because their issues aren’t obvious. (And even the disabled toilets are often not properly set up for their needs either.)

“Our research has also revealed that people are often verbally challenged and sometimes even physically assaulted when they use accessible toilets. Poor signage contributes to this problem.”
(www.colostomyuk.org)

I was quite specific -
“I think people who use disabled or accessible toilets who don’t need to (ie are not disabled nor in the category of people who legitimately require the physical differences present in the modified facilities) are incredibly selfish, entitled and pathetic. Unless you qualify, don’t use them. It really is that simple.”

An autistic person who has severe sensory and mental health issues would be within the category of people who legitimately require the facilities of a disabled toilet. (My opinion as someone with both physical disabilities and autism)

I was trying to be discrete. But I will put it more bluntly. A reason that many people, including children in schools, are found dead in toilets is due to mental health problems. Self harm, overdosing or actively wanting to end their life. I try not to talk about this too much but it’s even why you have to be careful about the placement of certain fixings.

I believe we have a duty to try and prevent these situations. People can be helped to get better.

Also, from bitter personal experience, people get very annoyed and vocal if they think you are “skipping the queue”, especially if you have an invisible disability.

Kindness and understanding often disappears when someone who looks “normal” needs to access the disabled facilities and flouts social convention by moving past the line and through the area to the disabled cubicle.

But how many of those lives would actually be saved by not having enclosed toilets? If someone is actively trying to end their life then enclosed toilets would not be the only space they could do it. Same with overdosing. It may provide a convenient space but that is very different from saying removing the space would save their life. On the other-hand, not having the spaces may mean someone is unable to leave the house leading to isolation and worsening mental health.

Yes, I think the fact that there’s usually a wheelchair icon on the door sometimes makes people think that it’s only for people with more obvious physical disabilities.
Or they don’t think it through at all more likely.

Couldn’t agree more.