My employer has just removed single sexed toilets to be more inclusive!

[Dhama]

In light of the SC ruling. Wtaf

Previously we had men, women and a unisex accessible toilet. They have now, in the guise of being inclusive, removed all signage and all are mixed sex.

The toilets are all individual, lockable with washing facilities included but that’s not the point. I hate using a toilet after men have been in there fgs.

We are a LA so unsure what the provisions are in other offices across the county.

I have emailed the head of facilities but not sure if I can do anything else.

am so cross

No it applies to the environment that is created by the employer. Pupils are in that environment. Who the employer is, depends on the type of school.

Edit: I got that schools have to abide by the 1974 regs directly from the DfE.

Tablets. It’s just colouring in corn flour that is released in water.

Rather have a heart attack in a ooo than be raped by a dolatowski.

Or, and this is a bit of an extreme suggestion so bear with me - we could just have single sex toilets so we could be both safe from the likes of Dolatowski and safer if we fall ill and need rescuing?

Oh wait no that might make some men sad, so we can't have that. Better to risk women's safety then mens feelings.

That doesn’t make sense. The unisex toilet is private and resists sound. The occupant can’t see out to warn them someone’s near the cubicle. People outside the cubicle can see and hear how many people are in the cubicle by how many feet there are. The latter point actually is a good incentive for something not to happen in the first place. Perpetrators don’t like witnesses.

Well others may feel differently. More importantly, that’s not the actual choice.

The reality is that single sex toilets with door gaps are actually way safer in terms of sexual assault as well as in the case of serious medical events. An attacker can push you into a single sex occupancy facility with full height doors, lock you in with him and nobody can hear what’s going on. The door gaps in single sex facilities mean the attack would be seen and heard by others and help can be had.

The problem with Dolatowski is that people were under the impression that, as a man, he was entitled to be in the women’s loo if only he said the magic words ‘I’m trans’. And everyone was too scared to raise an objection in case they were accused of bigotry or some dozy copper slapped them with a non-crime hate incident record. Now, everyone is clear that no male is meant to be in the female facilities, no matter how hurt his feelings if he’s told to leave. So males will now once again stick out like a sore thumb and be seen as a potential threat, rather than a ‘poor ickle most vulnerable of all’, whose comfort should be prioritised higher than that of actual female, whose safety and dignity should be ignored.

Just as an update

All subsequent emails requesting a copy of the EIA and Risk Assessment have been ignored 😕 still no sanitary provision in all toilets either
I have submitted a FOI request to get sight of the EIA and RA I have also asked for copies of all conversations/minutes etc around this decision

Really frustrating and not sure what I will do after that

Time to go public I reckon. Or, is this an LA? Contact SEEN in Local Authorities?

Flush tampons the first blockage may change their mind or you could wrap them and put them in a bin that people can see because surely they don't expect you to take them home right?

Your point that the 'The trans community represents a tiny, tiny proportion of the population' is very true.

Since that is the case, do you ever wonder why on earth such a tiny, tiny proportion of the population demands that the vast majority of the population accept changes in the law, medicine, education, the English language, the media, etc. etc.?

And on the specific subject of toilets, do you ever wonder why a tiny, tiny proportion of the population, who are perfectly capable of using the toilets designated for their sex, are very aggressively demanding that special toilets should be added to the existing women's/men's/disabled people's provision, regardless of the cost and disruption?

Why shouldn't that tiny, tiny proportion of the population just go about their business, not hurting anyone, by respecting single-sex spaces and using the toilets designated for their sex?

If there is scare-mongering going on, it's not working on me - I am not particularly scared of a transwoman using a women's toilet, no more than I would be of any other kind of man using the women's toilet.

I just believe in the principle of respecting other people's spaces; any man, trans or not, who uses the women's toilet should not be there, on principle.

They don't have to frighten anyone or attack anyone to be in the wrong - by failing to respect a single-sex-designated women's toilet, they have removed themselves from the category of 'people just trying to go about their business, not hurting anyone' .

They have revealed themselves instead as people who stubbornly insist on going where they know they don't belong [cf the UKSC ruling, for the avoidance of doubt] and where they know they are not wanted.

That's just wrong on principle, scary or not.

Some of the males who want to be in women's toilets raid the san pro bins for used san pro to...use themselves for umm... gender euphoria purposes. So I wouldn't advise leaving it where it can be accessed by males with that interest.