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.

It's almost like you've never been amongst grown-ups, if you don't mind me saying.

You may not realise this, but women walk around constantly aware of risk. And toilets are just one of those places. We can't eliminate it.

The narrative you appear to be enjoying is that unless women can use the newly confirmed law to exclude all men, it's not worth the paper it's written on. Followed up by a bit of ner, ner, ner, ner, ner.

Several women, including me, have said yes, in an ideal world women only cleaners would be great. But we don't live in an ideal world.

So unfortunately some women will absolutely exclude themselves from public toilets altogether.

But waaay more will exclude themselves if we allow men who, by their very entrance, are a red flag.

it's about risk mitigation. Not risk elimination. In other words, safeguarding.

I remember reading that Henry VIII got lamb and chicken into the fish category too, for fasting day purposes.
So, inspiration there for any more complete overreaching of reality.
People ate beavers? 😥

edited for typo

I would imagine beavers ( the animal for the avoidance of double entendres) taste revolting. I’m imagining gamey, fishy lamb.

I have seen similar scenarios posted on here, plus women with blood on them, half undressed etc as reasons why men shouldn't be in the ladies, quite often although I'm not going to go searching for them to prove a point . But basically saying it's about privacy and decency etc due to these things and that women often run to loos to escape certain situations. So there doesn't seem much point in people now saying that no one has ever said those things. Having said that I think this whole thread is ridiculous and I can't believe it's still going!!

But what if I personally didn’t say those things? The expectation seems to be that nonetheless I (or others) should be defending that view. It’s all a bit peculiar tbh. And doesn’t persuade me that men should piss anywhere other than the gents

So, you are WhatNextCatsAsDoctors?

The whole thread is peculiar!! Not saying any person in particular has said those things, just saying I have seen it given as reasons men shouldn't be in the loos. I don't get this whole palaver about male cleaners as has been pointed out many times there are warning signs put up and some people can't be picky about what job they do, you basically have to do what your manager tells you

What?

And you have seen “a woman running into a bathroom to escape a man and therefore shouldn’t see a man in the bathroom” as a scenario. Not a woman in say, a night club or pub, walking into a toilet to avoid a particular man who is bothering them?

There is quite a difference in urgency and a difference in needs.

And yes, women DO have blood on them and are sometimes half undressed. What is the significance of these situations to having a male cleaner enter? I would expect a male cleaner would announce they are about to enter, wouldn't you think? And that would give a woman or girl time to prepare?

Do you also think that if a woman entered a toilet and found a male cleaner, she could reasonably ask that cleaner to wait outside if needed?

Yes as I said I think the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous and I'm sure a male cleaner would make themselves known and leave if asked. Someone was saying that the points that the poster raised had never been presented as scenarios on here and I just said that I had actually seen similar scenarios pointed out on here a few times. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that women could have blood on them, be undressed, run to the toilets when feeling ill or perhaps scared or any number of things. It's often pointed out that the ladies can be a haven for women. And with that I think I'll stop reading this thread because the twists and turns are doing my head in!!

Apologies, I have just seen this.

It seems you would agree about how male cleaners work.

I suspect though that the poster saying “a woman running into a bathroom to escape a man and therefore shouldn’t see a man in the bathroom” is over dramatising what has been mentioned. As I said, there is a significant difference between “a woman running into a bathroom to escape a man and therefore shouldn’t see a man in the bathroom” and one entering into a pub or nightclub toilet to avoid a man. Particularly since in those venues at that time there is not likely to be a male cleaner active.

But it seems to be an over catastrophised interpretation of what has been used in the past as a reason for wanting no male people in a toilet, while also avoiding the fact it is likely to be able to ask any male cleaner to leave temporarily.

I have just responded because I believe we have cross posted.

Yes no worries, we agree!! I think the poster is desperately trying to make a point which clearly doesn't stack up and is being deliberately obtuse for the sake of it.

DeepGreyFox

I would guess it's more about reacting to the singular lack of empathy, affinity, or it would appear, any knowledge, of women's need for privacy (from that poster).

Most women would totally understand the standard scenario where you would go off to the loo, to avoid a handsy bloke, or an aggressive ex-boyfriend.

When someone frames it as 'running to the bathroom to escape', well, I don't know about anyone else, but to me, it just indicates a person who's never had to do any of these things.

Coupled with trying to manufacture a gotcha about a male cleaner just means that everyone gets down into the most minute of details to defend something that is completely self fucking evident to women in general.

And yes, I completely agree this thread is ridiculous.

But this is where we're at.

Toddler boys, male cleaners, and you can't eliminate risk, so why bother mitigating any of it. A ha!!

And this is why, in all conscience, women have to be constantly alert. Because some people will do anything to get to them.

It's honestly embarrassing.

Totally

I've lost track of this discussion, but if we're talking about male cleaner behaviour, my experience of it is that the guy will wait outside with his cleaning equipment & make sure there are no women inside the Ladies by waiting for everyone to leave. Then he'll put up a little A board outside, announcing his presence, & only then will he enter the Ladies & start cleaning.

It's done with the utmost courtesy & consideration for women, & bears no resemblance whatsoever to the concept of single-sex toilets being used as toilets by people of the opposite sex.

It really feels as you say. That it doesn't stack up.

Hence the request to see just what has been said. Maybe the poster has seen those examples and can link us up. I remain optimistic.

"Toddler boys, male cleaners, and you can't eliminate risk, so why bother mitigating any of it. "

Don't forget that women attack other women.
In France you have to walk past the urinals, what is the big deal. (I have had to do this and it is excruciating! And I blocked the view of the tween aged girl I was with at the time)
Plus lovely male trans friends
6ft 2 bearded well muscled female transgender friends

And the 'I have never experienced .....'

It feels endless.

It feels endless.

it really does.

And obviously it's less about the actual arguments, because they're risible, and more about the bloody relentless determination to make women comply.

These people will go to the ends of the earth to drum up the most ludicrous, mythical situation in the universe, as a means to do it.

Obviously normal people think it's noisy claptrap.

Which it is. But it's the determination that's concerning.

While the less able are busy talking about toddlers and male cleaners, the more able are trying to find every fricken loophole going in any number of laws, that they can leverage inch by bloody inch.

Indeedy. If these men just wanted to pee you’d think they’d just fucking get on with it in the gents. It’s almost like that’s not what it’s about at all…

Sarah Everard was tricked by an off-duty plain clothes officer i.e. he was not in uniform. That event was allowed to happen by people taking no notice of what was before their eyes: a man interested in rape who had been caught exposing himself, and who had not been removed from the force nor sanctioned because of his actions. Sadly, I doubt the Met is alone in harbouring nasty men.
I did not imply this:
If you don't know how being afraid of anyone having a lanyard and looking authoritative is the same as being afraid some might be rogue officers and ex-officers then that's your own problem.
However, we used to have only male cleaners in men's loos and only women cleaners in women's loos, so the problem is almost certainly poor staffing by an enterprise. If there is no man to clean the men's, then let the (male) manager do it. If there is no woman to clean the women's, then let the (female) manager do it. It's not rocket science. And it may be illegal to have opposite sex cleaners - sex is biological and men are men, however they identify.
Nothing that I said suggested that cross-dressing men should be allowed into women's spaces (or any men), but quite the opposite.

Then we have no argument with each other.

You are fully aware that cleaners of opposite sex are permitted as a stop-gap for workforce issues and it is not a violation of the sc ruling nor should the reasoning about opposite sex cleaners lead to men feeling entitled to enter a female only space.

I'm just glad that the Supreme Court banned women who're pregnant with a male foetus from female spaces. Thank you Lord Justices for your clarity.

Congratulations on the most batshit take yet.