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.

There is not a legal right for a trans person to use the facilities of the gender they identify as now. But it doesn’t stop private places choosing to still allow it, places like theatres etc etc. I think hospitals and places like that are different, they have to supply single sex spaces.

A man with a gender identity in the ladies either believes he has successfully deceived the women using the facility or knows that he hasn’t. Both options are creepy boundary pushing

because neither women's boundaries nor the law are important to them. Because they want to, and a man's whims are more important than the safety and dignity of women.
Because laws shouldn't apply to them.
Again, not all trans identifying males are like this. I refer only to those who insist they will carry on using women's spaces.

Yes it’s still allowed where I am. They have a sign on the door so you know before you enter. I am personally Not bothered.

Legally, they must clearly identify the toilets as mixed sex. They cannot label them separately as men's and women's unless they mean biological sex. They also run the risk of being sued by women who feel they are being discriminated against by mixed sex provision.

WhatNextCatsAsDoctors

Yes, you're quite right, obviously there will be some women who simply won't use a toilet with the possibility of a male cleaner. Because people, generally, understand that they can't always get what they want, all the time. And loathe it though they might, they're not in a position to force companies to only employ women to clean the ladies.

Other women will take their chances with a sign.

Most of those women, however, do not want to be using the toilet with men who couldn't give a fuck about their boundaries and who might or might not, be sexually aroused by their presence.

Transwomen fall into the last category.

In a perfect world, only women would clean women's toilets.

Most of the women here are adults, and realise that the world is not perfect.

For me, it’s is a very simple difference. There is a very obvious reason for a male cleaner being in a women’s toilet. He is doing his job. I have never yet been surprised by a male cleaner in a toilet- there has always been a sign outside every time I’ve come across it. (And actually I’ve rarely encountered it- not sure where you are that it happens ‘all the time’).

Furthermore, a male cleaner is not pretending to be a woman or asking to be seen as a woman.

I can accept a man in a women’s toilet if he is there to do a job and I know he is going to be there (and he is not trying to be anything other than a male cleaner)- I can choose whether to go ahead and use the facility or not. I do not accept men pretending to be women in a women’s toilet when I don’t expect to find a man in there.

It’s very simple to me and I don’t understand why you’re so confused about it.

As for women’s refuges- again, the women who have been traumatised by having a male presence in the facility did not expect to see and hear a male there. If they knew in advance there was a possibility of a man being there, how many would have avoided seeking help altogether? Refuges need to be safe and therapeutic spaces; it’s completely different to having a male cleaner in a toilet or a male HCP on a women’s ward. It would probably be great if we could always have women in all of those roles, but that’s just not how things are.

The single sex exceptions in the EA are exactly the same for service providers (private businesses) as for public functions (like hospitals). They are literally the same paragraphs of the Act.

The EA does not say that any service provider or public function MUST provide single sex services. It says they CAN if it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The SC judgment says that if a service provider / public function provides single sex services then these MUST actually be single sex. It makes no difference whether it's a private business or a public function.

So a private business could choose to only provide mixed sex facilities although they run the risk of legal action for indirect discrimination and/or unlawful harassment (the avoidance of which is always a legitimate aim!) What they cannot do is provide single sex facilities and then let some people of the wrong sex use them.

Document T, which forms part of the building regs, says that for any building open to the public, new builds and refurbishments MUST include separate male and female toilets wherever space permits so over time, it will only be very small premises which have mixed sex toilets.

We do have the (theoretical) right to single sex wards because this a pledge in the NHS constitution.

One group: Male toilet cleaners
Other group: Men who want to use the women's toilets

The thing they are both doing - going in the women's toilets

But it's not the exact same thing the toilet cleaners are going in there to clean the toilet, and the other men are going in there because they prefer to pee in the ladies than the mens

I judge them differently because the male toilet cleaner does go in the mens to clean them - ie. treats both facilities in the same way for their activity, where as the other group of men doesn't - they don't go in the mens at all - they only want to use the ladies.

If there was a male cleaner who said he only wanted to clean the womens, and wouldn't ever clean mens toilets, I might be a bit suspicious of him too (actually probably not, I've cleaned mens toilets before and they're often quite horrible)

You'll find it easier to hear if you removed your fingers from your ears and stopped chanting mantras to block out the "noise".

Do I need to copy in other replies about signs and informed consent? i.e. When an opposite sex cleaner is in, women are told and can choose (the stupid information and consent part) to leave.
And the cleaner is not a service user. I'm sure it's been said multiple times now. He gets his jonny out in the men's like all good men.

That question has been answered a hundred different ways. You want to see a service provider as the same as a service user fine. That's your problem. The rest of us do want that sign and ability to choose. But even you have to recognise that the reason you know they are the same is because they are both men!
It doesn’t matter who we allow in where. We all know the truth.

Now my question to you:
Are women allowed to meet without any males present? If so under what circumstances? And knowing they are women, which means they have babies, can they meet under these special circumstances with their male offspring? Especially the ones still at breast. You know the stupid biology thing that just keeps getting in the way...

If transwomen, who you recognise as equivalent to a male cleaner, must always be permitted then you must realise that you do not believe that women have the fundamental human right of gathering as a sex class.

It’s men, not TW - all men. I don’t see men as a group of people I am prejudiced against - I have two lovely men sat within 10 feet of me right now - they’re lovely! But I wouldn’t want any woman to share a public loo or changing room with them.

Stop trying to make this into a ‘MN women hate TW’ argument. It isn’t. It’s a MN women recognise that males as a group, which includes TW, are a greater risk, and have different bodies which means dignity concerns need to be recognised.

That distinction you (ETA DurinsBane sorry I lost the quoting somehow with an odd MN error ) just made between theatres etc. and hospitals etc. does not exist in the Equality Act. Both are providing "a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not)". See

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/3/crossheading/provision-of-services-etc

(Caveat IANAL. But I think this is clear and uncontroversial.)

The two most lame and revealing arguments on the toilet front are now being trotted out ad nauseam:

• male cleaners
• little boys with their mothers

Happily, all they do is show up how ridiculous those who deploy them are.

They have a job to do, they're not there to commit a sex offence.

No wonder mumsnet has a reputation for being obsessed with this stuff.

This is the cognitive dissonance. If it was ALL men, then male cleaners wouldn’t be allowed either.

All the points about ‘well, it’s about intent!’ are grasping at straws. If it was just about intent then trans women just wanting to pee - the truth you openly mock- would be fine.

Few people have been able to answer my question:

An argument has been made on here for a very long time that the reason trans women aren’t allowed in female toilets is because in a scenario where a woman:

1. Is trying to escape a male harasser outside
2. Comes out of a cubicle with period blood on her hands
3. Comes out of a cubicle in a state of partial undress

if she were to see a ‘man’ (or someone she was recognise instantly as male) her fight or flight would kick in and she would be terrified.

Explain to me why that WOULDN’T apply to male cleaners?

Some of you have argued about informed consent, but how does that work for the first point where women’s bathrooms operate an emergency refuge (again, a common argument used on here)?

And even then, as we’ve established, the sign will almost always say ‘please be aware male cleaners sometimes clean this toilet’. I’ve actually never seen a sign which points out a male cleaner present in that moment, when there has been one inside.

So by the above logic, women who are uncomfortable with male cleaners would then need to just simply not use that toilet. Again, that goes against all the arguments parroted on here.

I understand that currently men CAN legally clean women’s toilets as they are a service provider and user, but the it’s a matter of if they SHOULD. My point is that if you were consistent and wanted to prove you weren’t just targeting trans people, you would be rallying against this too.

If your logic were consistent, you’d be fighting for NO men or trans women, no matter who they are or what they are doing, in women’s spaces. But you won’t, because male cleaners just don’t make you as angry because you all have a deep bias against trans people.

I’ve also never seen a ‘male’ presenting trans woman in the loo but I’ve seen plenty of male cleaners. One genuinely feels more like a real world issue.

That was a response to this. Sorry, for some reason my quote function isn’t working properly.

There is no difference. Male cleaners and trans women should both pee in the gents.

But according to the frequently used arguments on here (see the 3 I listed), male cleaners could cause harm just by BEING in there, regardless of their intent or where they pee!

Yes they could! That is why there's a sign outside to warn women that they are in there!

Man alive woman. You really will go around in circles to confirm your views.

the reason men aren’t allowed to use toilets provided for women is that they’re for women. Men can clean the toilets but they can’t use them. The fact that you appear unable to grasp this makes me think you probably shouldn’t be allowed to cross the road by yourself

on a personal note, I expect to be in charge of whether or not I’m partially dressed in the presence of a man. You appear to think I should not expect that right?

You appear to be making both sides of the argument

and you come across as both bonkers and factually wrong on both sides 😂

Which is why there's a sign outside letting women know so they are aware a man is in there, what he's there to do and who his employer is. When that same cleaner goes for a pee in the gents he doesn't need a sign as he's allowed in there without any notice. It's really not hard to understand. If a trans woman gets a job as a cleaner exactly the same conditions apply.

The best practice with male workers is they knock they call out male cleaner/plumber can I come in or does anyone want me to wait until they are finished? They then respect any requests to wait a moment and pop a temporary sign up to alert any women who enter when the man is already inside. The vague, permanent may be cleaned by any gender signs are shit and I do object to them. The best practice was standard practice until a few years ago until the ladies became a free for all anyway.

As for small boys not a worry because they are not a sexual threat, they are not a physical threat (even my tiny elderly godmother could probably fight off a 7 year old) and are with a female carer who stop them doing anything inappropriate.

That's a very interesting statement - the question in the thread title was answered on the very first page, so there was no 'obsession' at all, just a yes, because they are doing their job, not using the wrong toilet.
End of, full stop, QED, you'd think, wouldn't you?

Instead we got a stream of yeah but what if.. posts, which were also answered thoroughly and logically, only to re-appear again and again so there have now been 14 pages of this.

I've already posted after I think 9 pages of this silliness, saying that the question had been fully answered so what had been going on for 9 whole pages?

It's now 14 pages. Why do you think it is contributing to MN's alleged reputation for being obsessed with the stuff? I think you're reading the situation wrongly. The obsessed parties are whoever keeps posting flimsy yeah but what if.. scenarios again and again even after they have been conclusively answered.

edited to restore lost quoted post:
Christinapple · Today 08:44
They have a job to do, they're not there to commit a sex offence.
No wonder mumsnet has a reputation for being obsessed with this stuff