Are toilets still allowed to be cleaned by members of the opposite sex?

[PoisedRubyLion]

I see signs saying toilets may be cleaned by members of the opposite sex in a lot of places. Is this allowed after the supreme court ruling? If a male cleaner was in there it would be a mixed sex space.

‘troons’

Your mask is slipping

Hmmm. But in a materially reality sense, they are men. You might not want to go on about it out of a desire not to cause someone distress, but they aren't actually women. You can presumably tell the sex of other mammals?

I have no idea what I am supposed to have in common with a transwoman that makes us both women beyond things that I might have in common with any of my male friends or family (such as shared interests and hobbies).

The central thing I have in common with other women is that we are all female. We have been brought up and socialised as female, and have experience being female in a society that generaly regards us as a bit second class in many situations. But we don't all like the same music, or the same food, or the same films, or read the same books, or have the same hair, or all wear makeup.

So I don't know what it is that makes a trans woman a "woman", beyond steretypical presentation. Hair and clothes.

Yes. What in the cognitive dissonance is going on in this thread.

You all say: ‘no men in women’s spaces. End of. Full stop. Women come out of cubicles covered in blood, with their trousers open, partially undressed in other ways. Men should NOT be there. When women see men whilst they’re in a vulnerable state they get an immediate fear response.’

‘what about male cleaners?’

’oh that’s fine’

????????????

THERE IS A SIGN SAYING THAT THERE IS (OR COULD BE) A MALE CLEANER.

THE WOMAN CONCERNED THEN HAS THE CHOICE WHETHER THEY WANT TO USE THAT TOILET OR COME BACK LATER ON OR CHOOSE AN ALTERNATIVE TOILET.

THE MALE CLEANER DOES NOT LIVE IN THE TOILET. HE WILL PRESUMABLY DO HIS JOB AND THEN LEAVE THE TOILETS.

IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?

A male cleaners presence is clearly signalled so that women can make an informed decision about whether to enter or not.

What is it about this that you find so difficult to understand?

I don't love using a toilet when there is a male cleaner there, but I generally do.
It doesn't mean I want more men in there though, increasing the chance of an uncomfortable experience.

Toilets are really just the tip of the iceberg though.
I'd be fine with men cleaning the swimming pool before/after women are racing, but less fine with them taking part in the races.

You say pedantic, I say precise. Which is a good thing.

The SC didn't opine on whether GRC's apply to other laws or not; it wasn't asked to.

Some people including me think that if the courts were asked to decide whether a GRC applied for the purposes of the Workplace Regulations (and consequently what the provision of separate toilets for 'men' and 'women' means) they would rule that GRC's don't apply to those regulations either, and for the same reasons they applied to the Equality Act in FWS. That would settle that the separate toilets that are required are to be separated on the basis of biological sex.

I thought it was ALL men? Regardless of who they are or what they are doing? Or is it just some now?

How convenient.

Also, yes:

www.montrealgazette.com/news/article94794.html

Or wait, does it seem ridiculous to you to banish all male cleaners based on the actions of a few bad eggs?

Caps lock not necessary.

This is so hilariously contradictory. So because a male is present, a woman needs to go elsewhere?

What if a woman had no choice but to go in there because she’s trying to escape a male harassing her outside the loo (again, a real scenario used on here), and is then confronted by a man?

And as has been stated on here many times, lots of toilets simply have signs saying ‘please be aware this toilet is cleaned by male staff’. So how long does she have to wait?

I for one will say with clarity and confidence that boys under the age of 8 using the toilets with their mums are no threat to women's safety.

The male cleaner is excluded from using the women’s loos, just like all other men are. He is not a service user, he is in his workplace.

An analogy might be male staff and officers in a women’s prison, or a male doctor or nurse on a women’s hospital ward.

Oh good Lord.

It seems reasonable to want restrict cleaners of women's toilets to be women. A compromise is to put up the "this bathroom is being cleaned by a male cleaner" sign. It would not be unreasonable to say that a permanent sign saying "this bathroom could be cleaned by a male cleaner" is inadequate. It would have to be argued carefully.

However, since the male cleaner is not a service user, it's not compulsory, and it doesn't change the single-sex nature of the service.

Banish is an interesting choice of words - it makes it sounds like you think cleaning women's toilets is a right, or prize, or privilege awarded to the men doing it. Something to think about in that.

it's mental that TRAs will claim that men in dresses are no more risk to women than 8 year old boys.
They also claim that the men's toilets, deemed safe for unaccompanied 9 year old boys, are unsafe for grown men in dresses.

The cleaner is not 'using the facilities', they're cleaning it. They're fully dressed and busy cleaning them. Fully dressed throughout.

Do you expect their employers to double the number of cleaners they have and need, just so that women clean the ladies' and men clean the mens'?

Women come out of cubicles covered in blood, with their trousers open, partially undressed in other ways

I'm in my late 60s and have never seen a woman come out of a cubicle covered in blood or partially undressed. Ever.

I see your distinction between service users and those working in a service, and that’s still confusing to me.

It’s a GOR in a lot of single sex refuges to be a woman if you are a case worker. As we’ve heard many times, even hearing a man’s voice can be triggering for some survivors.

I see male cleaners in women’s toilets all the time, and I have never understood why people on here would be okay with it. For me it’s a contradiction to be okay with one and not the other. Regardless if someone is a service user or a cleaner, you can still ensure that person is female.

I find it to be an interesting exercise because it shows the beliefs on here that are being held about trans people being perverts (not that people on here are really hiding those beliefs any more).

I haven’t either, but that argument is used on here all the time to explain why trans women shouldn’t be allowed in women’s toilets.

Wait, you mean it would be unreasonable to disrupt people’s lives in the name of protecting women’s spaces?!

What’s so difficult to understand? Toilets are for the USE of one sex. The cleaner isn’t the service user, they’re the provider. And service users are notified of their presence. You know, informed consent. (FWIW the male cleaners where I work stand outside and wait till all the women have left, then clean.)

So explain to me why all the reasons that everyone gives on here as to why trans women shouldn’t be in women’s spaces (seeing them in a vulnerable state, intimidation by male bodies, shock and surprise) don’t also apply to male cleaners?

You seem to think I’m arguing that it’s currently not allowed and that I don’t understand that. I do, but I’m explaining that by the logic on here it SHOULDN’T be.

I don’t care about trans women in toilets, but I’m just pointing out the cognitive dissonance. If you are going to disrupt the lives of so many trans people, at least be consistent!

A refuge where all case workers are women is likely to employ only women as cleaners, particularly those who clean the toilets. That seems reasonable to me.

Many women probably would prefer a female cleaner in women's toilets. I put forward as evidence for this the existence of the "this bathroom is being cleaned by a male cleaner" sign.

A significant difference between a male toilet cleaner in a women's toilet and a male toilet user in a women's toilet is that the latter has already overridden women's boundaries by entering, indicating he's part of the minority of men who don't care about women comfort or dignity. That's much more concerning to a woman than a male cleaner who obviously hasn't entered by his own choice but is required to by his employer to carry out his duties (and probably doesn't want to be there a second longer than he needs to be to do his job).

I don't see a cause for confusion.

I'm sure they'll cope.

Transwomen are men, and should always have used men's facilities.

Regardless of the reasons why they are there, would the impact not be the same? Would a woman not be shocked by a male body, or made to feel uncomfortable if she was in any state of undress when leaving a cubicle?

‘I have some very strong preconceived ideas and will performatively misunderstand any posts that challenge my ideas. Did I mention that you’re all bigots?’