Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Toilet progress Supreme Court

36 replies

JazzyBBBG · 04/08/2025 18:02

This lovely little sign has done up at my leisure centre in last couple of days. Well done Dudley!

Toilet progress Supreme Court
OP posts:
Keeptoiletssafe · 07/08/2025 12:07

My research shows it is women who are too afraid to use gender neutral toilets so they use the ladies. Men who want to use the ladies, want to use the ladies not gender-neutral. Robin Moira White calls the gender-neutral toilets ghettos, although also says they are useful for other people in the process of transitioning. From a Stonewall survey (published in 2018 and referred to in 67% of the responses for the ‘calls for evidence’ in the toilet consultation for Doc T), people are being harassed by being verbally abused and in one incidence, pushed out the toilets by 2 women. 48% were uncomfortable using toilets. The general population figure (in a different survey) is 80% feel uncomfortable. Opinions and surveys need to be qualified by facts.

There’s a consistency to my findings of private toilets that shows it’s where people (always involving a man) have sex, it’s less clean, and there’s a greater risk of catching something or coming to harm. The most obvious example of preventable harm is someone who has had a medical emergency and isn't found in time. These are individual tragedies that happen on a regular basis to too many families. I have found examples where this has happened to men, women and children in toilets. It can be cardiac arrests, strokes, drugs, head injuries, choking, suicide, self-harm gone wrong.

But the other major prevention is that people ‘prefer’ to do criminal things in private. It doesn’t seem to matter how public the space is before the private enclosed toilet room/cubicle as there’s no witnesses. CCTV doesn’t prevent as it’s retrospective and not inside the cubicle/room (though we are now getting close to that in some schools).

We don’t need to replace single sex toilets with mixed sex toilets. I don’t think there’s enough benefit to justify the cost.

If you tack a private mixed toilet on to increase provision, this is what will happen:
Some may function ok depending on supervision levels (someone being in place having awareness of who is going in and out in real time). This is the same as a unisex toilet at school reception. Others will be stuck in inappropriate places - such as the women’s changing rooms in the basement in the Sandie Peggie case. Women won’t like using them because of safety risks, dirt and smells. Men who want to use the ladies won’t use them because they’ll feel outed or othered. People who will use them include men for a ‘good sit down’ with their phone, two people having sex, and people doing drugs. Depending on where it is, you may have someone sleeping in there if the cubicle/room is big enough. It will be vandalised more frequently. Because of this, it will be shut down more regularly for maintenance. Public toilets sometimes only last a day before they have to be shut down. That’s why thousands have been shut down permanently around the country.

It will be interesting to hear the Good Law Projects arguments in November because I don’t know what position they can justify on health and safety grounds. As soon it’s ambiguous as to who is using toilets, the design goes completely private. Mixed sex designs are always private.

Whichever way they argue, they are arguing for less safe and less hygienic toilets. They haven’t thought it through and don’t have the research on real life consequences.

I keep hearing the term ‘luxury beliefs’ and I think this works with toilets too. When people making policy or designing public toilets think the most horrid thing about toilets is that they are not in a completely private cubicle/room, it becomes a problem.
When I speak to policy-makers some lament that there used to toilet attendants. We have to rely on strangers now for supervision.

Women should have twice as much provision as men. There should be blocks of toilets with a private single sex area (with sinks) and then individual toilet cubicles with gaps above and below the doors and partitions. This minimises queues. The block should preferably have natural light and roof lights/windows that open for natural ventilation. The sanitary bins should be placed within the cubicle then the toilet positioned. There should be an increase in ambulant toilets within single sex provision. These have handrails and shelves so useful for those who may otherwise have to use the accessible provision. The pinnacle would be an accessible toilet within the single sex block too. There should be a clear standard set of rules: no loitering, no phones out, and a note on voyeurism laws and the sexual offence act.
The accessible mixed sex toilet(s) should be as carefully monitored as is possible.

Toilet blocks should be as boring and functional as possible.

In nightclubs etc there could be an open plan area for preening with mirrors, chairs and a sink etc and Instagram friendly walls. Completely public and nothing hidden, open to all.

LadyQuackBeth · 07/08/2025 12:37

We don't actually know what accessible provision they have, it's mentioned in plural, so unlikely to be just one.

Our local leisure centre has male and female, with 3 stalls each and four accessible toilets which double up as baby change or taking multiple children in. Many leisure centres have a lot of provision for buggies etc rather than just the minimum requirement.

ErrolTheDragon · 07/08/2025 12:50

It’s a start but they shouldn’t be encouraging all and sundry to use the Accessible loos.

I’d hope venues which are supposed to be family friendly would already have some mixed sex facilities for parents with opposite sex children, though maybe they’d explicitly be labelled as for families, so they wouldn’t be appropriate for single adults either.

Keeptoiletssafe · 07/08/2025 13:46

If children are going to the toilet with an adult, they are safer going into the less private toilet single sex toilet of their adult ‘carer’, than a private mixed sex toilet together or a private toilet on their own. That is why it is right that there is an exception for young children.

A parent will protect their child from seeing anything untoward.

An adult-child combination that is of opposite sexes should not have more privacy than an adult-child combination of the same sex.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 08/08/2025 11:48

It appears Police Scotland may have complied with the Supreme Court ruling.

x.com/caluma_steele/status/1953742953727299848?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

DuesToTheDirt · 08/08/2025 13:46

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 08/08/2025 11:48

It appears Police Scotland may have complied with the Supreme Court ruling.

x.com/caluma_steele/status/1953742953727299848?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

Haha, bet they hated doing that.

Again, we have "may be difficult and upsetting for some of our colleagues" - they didn't give a fuck about making it "difficult and upsetting" for women these past years.

DecemberPlusFebruary · 08/08/2025 13:55

Pleased to see this, but I also worry about disabled toilets being hijacked for this reason.

Having a disability does not entitle you to use the disabled toilet. Your disability needs to relate to having a physical condition that requires the space and facilities and immediate access that disabled toilets provide.

Lots of us have disabilities that do not require an accessible toilet.

LevoitPotato · 08/08/2025 13:57

DuesToTheDirt · 04/08/2025 20:39

Is India a regular at Alton Towers? (What a picture that is.)

That’s hilarious

myplace · 08/08/2025 14:05

So accessible toilet cubicles in normal single sex toilet blocks work? I’m sure that’s what they have in Ikea. One of the cubicles is significantly bigger with a different door mechanism. But it’s within the single sex toilets.

I would have thought that was a good solution, provided the doors are manageable. I wonder if it only works where there is a constant stream of people in and out to manage the doors.

Keeptoiletssafe · 08/08/2025 14:17

myplace · 08/08/2025 14:05

So accessible toilet cubicles in normal single sex toilet blocks work? I’m sure that’s what they have in Ikea. One of the cubicles is significantly bigger with a different door mechanism. But it’s within the single sex toilets.

I would have thought that was a good solution, provided the doors are manageable. I wonder if it only works where there is a constant stream of people in and out to manage the doors.

Those may be ambulant toilets which are a great idea. Slightly bigger, hand rails and a shelf.

MarieDeGournay · 08/08/2025 14:17

I start from the position that there is no real reason for transwomen not to use the men's toilet - there is no evidence of any danger to them, and 'feeling uncomfortable' doesn't seem to bother them as they are happy to make women, and disabled people, feel uncomfortable by having our designated spaces used by male/ non-disabled people.

The provision of 'fourth spaces' i.e. proper, building-regs-compliant unisex toilets, is expensive and disruptive to existing buildings, and new buildings are required to provide single-sex facilities. All this to placate a tiny percentage of the population - 0.5%? 0.2%? who do not need their own separate facilities, in the way that people with disabilities need adapted accessible facilities.

The ideas that we must provide so-called 'third spaces' [ignoring that disabled toilets are the existing, required third space] has gathered a momentum entirely out of proportion to the number of people claiming to 'need' them.
It is not unreasonable, or literal violence, to suggest to a biological male that there are two sex-segregated toilets, designated by biology, and please use the one that matches your biological sex.

Furthermore, many transpeople - an increasing number, I think - are now saying that of course they haven't changed their sex, they acknowledge that they retain their natal sex, they have just changed their gender presentation, and make their demands based on that.

A transperson who acknowledges that they have not changed biological sex, just their gender presentation, has no basis for asserting a 'right' to use the single-sex facilities designated for the opposite biological sex.

Basically, this trans obsession with using other people's toilets, or demanding their own special facilities, is unreasonable, expensive, disproportionate, disruptive, unjustifiable and tiresome.

Next time, I'll come off the fence and tell you what I really think😁

New posts on this thread. Refresh page