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.

The EHRC guidance (currently under consultation) gives an example confirming that a small child of one sex can accompany a parent of the opposite sex in the single sex spaces that the parent is entitled to use and this would not be a breach of the SSE of the EA.

What if someone pretended to be a cleaner in order to assault the women in the toilet?

Of course. People are completely misinterpreting the extent and scope of the Supreme Court!

yet again i reiterate, the ruling says that IF you choose to have services that are segregated then it can be legally segregated by natal sex, that a grc, self determination or legal gender change doesn’t mean you automatically gain access to single sex services IF the org decides to segregate by sex. This is not compulsory, toilets and changing rooms can still be gender neutral if they choose, and if your job is to clean the loos you can be of either sex.

You mean, a bit like men pretending to be women and assaulting women?
That would be breaking the law.

MyAmpleSheep · Today 17:15

It’s not the space that’s single sex, it’s the service. The law says service providers can discriminate by sex in appropriate circumstances, such as by providing separate toilets for use by men and women.

The person cleaning the toilets isn’t a service user, they’re part of the provision of that service, so allowing a man to clean a women’s toilet doesn’t make a mixed-sex toilet. If he stopped cleaning to unzip and pee in it, then he would become a service user. He shouldn’t do that.

It might be proportionate to allow only a women to clean a women’s toilet, but it wouldn’t be required in law, and it doesn’t change the nature of the service provision either way.

Yeah exactly. I would think if I was a sexual predator I would rather dress up as a cleaner than a woman.

I don’t understand why people on here wouldn’t be as concerned with male cleaners in toilets as they are trans women in toilets? The mantra for so long has been ‘no men in women’s spaces’. If you agree with the premise that men lurk in women’s bathrooms for cruel-intentioned reasons, surely it’s easier for a man to grab a ‘male cleaner present’ sign and a cleaner’s uniform than it is to go through the process of transitioning to be a woman.

Why are you so outraged at one, and not the other?

I don’t think the OP is being so outrageously daft as people are suggesting. A lot of the arguments against transwomen using female toilets would also apply - women who have suffered abuse don’t feel safe with males in there, Muslim women should have the space free of males etc.

I’m not saying I think it is a problem, but I don’t understand the outrage at asking the question.

There is other legislation that does require single sex services to be provided. Schools are required by law to provide single sex toilets for pupils 8 or over. Single sex changing rooms must be provided in workplaces where employees are required to change eg hospitals

What if someone worked as a sports coach to assault children?

What if, what if?

And, if the cleaner is male, but cleaning a female toilet , he would go into the men's toilets to pee. He is not getting his penis out in the ladies loo, he is cleaning because that's his job.

Yet men who pretend to be women do assault women.
Not too many stories of cleaner identifying males harassing and assaulting women, but maybe you'll direct me to some reports.

Just reposting this post from @HermioneWeasley (my repost above got deleted due to my added comment, so I am not commenting this time!):

'This is such an abusive male tactic - if you don’t let adult male cross dressers in your paces we’re going to make it hard for you to take your toddler son to the loo
how dare you, how dare middle aged men snivel behind baby boys'.

Ooh I know, what if a man identified as a cleaner? Or a 6 year old?

Male cleaners put a sign outside the door to say 'male cleaner in toilet'. The women can make their OWN CHOICE about whether to go in there.

The TW does not put a sign outside the door when entering the women's toilet. The women have no choice in the matter.

Do you understand it now?

Then they'd be just as much of a perverted , sad weirdo as the men who put on dresses in order to wank in cubicles of women's toilets.

Women get assaulted by men all the time it very rarely makes it to court, let alone the news.

I agree. I've never had a problem with a temporary sign on the women's toilets letting everyone know that there is a male cleaner in there RIGHT NOW doing his job. That used to give anybody who couldn't enter with a male in the room (for whatever reason) the chance to potentially go and find a different toilet to use. One without any males in the room whatsoever.

But these days, all of the signs seem to be permanent. A permanent sign on the door of the female and the male toilets letting customers know that toilets may be cleaned by people of the opposite sex (or sometimes, may be cleaned by people of 'all genders').

I'd personally like to see the removal of these, and a return to temporary signage when staff of the opposite sex are in the room. Then it's clear.

(And no, I don't think any of this is remotely relevant to small children entering the opposite sex toilet with their opposite sex parent!)

The SC ruling was to determine if people could could legally change their sex in regard to which single sex service they are permitted to access. It concluded they could not. It didn't rule on whether you can legally have opposite sex staff members servicing a facility or whether prepubescent children are banned from single sex spaces (because those weren't the challenges FWS brought).

The 'of any age' reference actually re-enforces that cut off for children in the wrong sex facilities is expected to come well before their legal adulthood. Had they said men means males over 18 years old then 17 year olds would be legally able to access wrong sex facilities and everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that that isn't the case.

We don't get a sign anymore, though. Just a permanent one on the door warning that there MIGHT be an opposite sex staff member in there. At any time.

I wouldn’t have an issue with it, it’s not practical to hire two people to clean loos. Having been a toilet cleaner myself, you tend to only be in there for five minutes per hour with a proper clean at end of day.

There’s a difference in having a mixed sex loo and having cleaners of either sex. I’ve worked in a care home where various residents requested same sex care. No one cared which sex the cleaners were.

If you are asking a genuine question as opposed to using the male cleaner as a gotcha, why not respond to this helpful analysis?

To be fair it is uncommon men pretend to be cleaners. There one case I know. More common is female cleaners being attacked by men. I think it can be a vulnerable job.

Or maybe the men who think they're women, but can't now get into our spaces, will go online and buy themselves a uniform and a bucket and perv at women that way. I dare say they haven't done it because they didn't need to/ hadn't thought of it.

😆I know you're joking, but I'm actually surprised someone on this thread hasn't already said "but what if a man disguised himself as a 6 year old to enter toilets and assault women".
I mean, that's the level of critical thinking apparent in some posters here!