Mixed sex toilets are terrifying for women but just a laugh for men.

[CrocsNotDocs]

I can enjoy a good fart joke but this “hilarious” anecdote by cricket commentator David “Bumble” Lloyd left me cold. Men really have no idea of the fear women have of mixed sex facilities.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/3843028419327926/?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&fs=e&fs=e

If the link doesn’t work, it’s a viral, supposedly hilarious account of David going into a mixed-sex loo for a poo and letting off a loud fart. The lady in the cubicle next to him calls out “Is that you Maureen”.

From David’s point of view, (and pretty much every man and “cool girl” on the planet) he thinks that Maureen must be such a regular farter that her friend thinks the fart noise just has to be her.

I suspect most women would read this situation differently- Maureen’s friend has realised she was half naked inches away from a strange man and is calling out anxiously to her friend to make sure she isn’t alone.

I’m wondering what this board’s thoughts would be. Am I just looking to hard into an anecdote or is men’s complete obliviousness a big issue when it comes to mixed sex facilities.

It’s not ‘casual ageism’ to make the very factual observation that age is a huge factor in the increased risk of heart attack or stroke.

I’m glad you don’t feel like it is an issue for you personally. How lovely that the men in Denmark are all perfect, clean non splashing gentlemen who wouldn’t dream of any inappropriateness towards women but our men are not Danish and we are not Denmark.

Well yes, you can't actually identify out of the increased medical risks that come with aging. I hope your eyes are never opened there by experience.

And it's lovely that you personally don't need single sex spaces, you'll do fine in the gender neutral ones then. I'm happy for you. Now can I introduce you to this concept of 'other people having needs too?'

The moaning about don't women have better ways to women like knitting than thinking up and researching really inconvenient information that prevents men having a happy jolly in women's facilities.... oh do moan on. Have a ball. Have two.

Ashitha Nagesh
BBC News
In 2017 Denmark was named the second best country for gender equality in the European Union, beaten only by its neighbour Sweden.
It was one of only nine countries to hit EU childcare targets, had one of the most gender-equal attitudes to housework, and was one of the few European countries close to achieving a 50:50 parliament, according to the Gender Equality Index.
But in a report released last week, Amnesty International warned that Denmark also has "widespread sexual violence", external and systemic problems in how it deals with rape.
Several studies say that Denmark has the highest prevalence of sexual violence in Europe.
The Danish Ministry of Justice estimates that around 5,100 women a year are victims of rape or attempted rape, while the University of Southern Denmark put this figure as high as 24,000 in 2017 - a high number for a country with a relatively small population (5.8 million).
That same year, only 890 rapes were reported to the police, of which 535 led to prosecutions, and 94 ended in convictions.
Speaking to Amnesty, victims said they often found "the reporting process and its aftermath immensely traumatising", either because they were not believed, they were interrogated by officers, or, in one case, important evidence that was later needed at trial was allegedly not properly collected.
The National Danish Police have told BBC News that they are striving to improve how they deal with people reporting rape, and that they are working to new guidelines that were drawn up in 2016.
So how did a country with an otherwise impressive record of gender equality end up being named one of the worst on the continent for violence against women?
'A hindrance to equality'
Some believe the Scandinavian country's image as a progressive utopia has actually added to the problem.
"We have this general notion that we have already achieved gender equality in Denmark, that the fight is over and there's nothing left to fight for," Helena Gleesborg Hansen, vice president of the Danish Women's Society, tells BBC News. "And this is the biggest hindrance we see when we talk about gender equality."
Denmark was one of the first countries to sign up to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (the Istanbul Convention) - a wide-ranging international treaty that seeks to combat violence against women worldwide.
But despite Denmark getting on board early, Grevio, the group set up to monitor whether countries are correctly implementing the convention, warned that it was still falling short in 2017.
One fundamental issue, the group said, was the definition of rape in Danish law.

What are the views of Sex Matters and Maya re women who choose to go into the men's on their own free will because the queues are shorter?

Should these women be criminalised because they are in toilets that don't match their assigned sex? Should the men in there call them out and drag them out?

If women are so terrified of mixed sex toilets or men in toilets why is it so common for women to go into the men's to skip queues?

You need Sex Matters if you want their opinions, not Mumsnet. Here you are:

https://sex-matters.org/

Because women aren’t as much as a risk to men as men are to women so they are actively choosing to go there. They also aren’t cosplaying as men in order to take a piss.

If men have a problem with women in their spaces that’s for them to take up.

You two just spoilt the gotcha

I have NEVER heard of women using the men’s when there is a perfectly good women’s option immediately available. They use the men’s (very occasionally and often out of desperation) because the women’s is unavailable for a length of time due to long queues.

You have actually just draw attention to the inadequate provision available to women the majority of the time. Women take longer than men to use the toilet because of their different anatomy. However provision doesn’t match their needs and hence the queues for women’s and not men’s.

You have also highlighted how regressive the trend of providing mixed sex multiple stalls rooms with no urinals. Because, taking aside all the other reasons these set ups are wrong, men now have to queue alongside women due to inadequate toilet provision.

You have proved everyone’s point.

I don't think most men find mixed sex toilets a laugh.

Last year on a thread about loos at The Lyric, Hammersmith I mentioned those at the Royal Court. The RC had A4 paper signs saying something like '6 urinals, 2 cubicles' outside one door and '6 cubicles' outside the other with reminders to Be Kind, in other words, ladies don't be hatin' if you find some guy in the women's loo.

I was back at the RC later in the year to find the facilities completely re-vamped, no doubt at great cost. The former Men's is now 2 fully closed cubicles with handbasin inside each; the former Women's is something like 6/7 fully closed cubicles, with a row of communal hand basins.

So men and women queuing together and I have to say the couple of men in there did look decidedly uncomfortable.

They don't sound legal to be honest.

I thought a mixed sex toilet was for single occupancy and each toilet with a basin included and that they couldn't be self contained stalls (as in a cubicle with floor to ceiling walls) within a larger self contained room.

To clarify I thought they couldn't be just a traditional ladies loo setting but with the stall walls extended and sinks in the middle for all.

Legal or not, that's how they are. Same as the members' restaurant at the V&A - the sign says Unisex, and there is a line of fully enclosed cubicles but with a row of communal washbasins.

Are the line of toilets on a corridor or within an enclosed room?

The mixed sex units are likely not lawful as the decision reduced total provision which impacts women more.
(Assumption that number are correct bla bla..)

But they had
M 6U + 2C (p=8)
F 0U + 6 7C
Provision 6U + 9 C (p=15)

That was an underprovision for F as women need more time.

Then pushing males into the female space left as Mp = 15 while Fp = 9
Clear and obvious discrimination

Now
M 2 EC
F 7 EC
Provision 0U + 9C (p=9)
Likely only swapped doors in F

They have dropped the total provision

The provisions design is based on 50%+?/50%+?
The ? being a guestimation of likely sex imbalance an any one event.

Overall everybody has less provision.

All to judtify having males in female spaces

Same thing at the ICA. Fully enclosed cubicles but shared washbasins.

Fully enclosed cubicles from a corridor or enclosed room?

I lot of these unisex cubicles with shared washbasins are not what anyone had in mind for health and safety. They definitely do not conform to document T but that is from 2024 onwards. BP seems to have increased confusion about 1992 legislation yesterday then there’s the ruling today which I haven’t looked at as I am working. I know 1992 is for workplaces (it doesn’t include schools even which technically is a workplace) but then if staff use the toilets or if a venue is co-opted it muddies the waters. Document M for accessibility arguably isn’t being fulfilled with separate sex toilets with separate sex washrooms being a feature. 1974 legislation isn’t being fulfilled as it requires health and safety for visitors too.

You can have unisex designs (the sink, wc and dryer in the same room) for single sex facilities. I know this caused a lot of debate with Document T. The only material difference is the pictogram on the door and adding a sanitary bin for women. It isn’t recommended and it’s worse for women because it takes longer for each user to leave the room. It does not affect men as much as men are quicker per visit as they don’t have periods to sort or as many items like clothes and bags to rearrange and don’t tend to wash their hands as much. However it is much slower than urinals. All this is assuming that people are using the toilet for what it’s intended for. People do lots of other things in toilets, and private designs are more attractive for the other stuff.

It’s a slight to Health and Safety professionals and inspectors for venues to change provision for ‘inclusivity’ without looking at health and safety for everyone. Venues are all cutting corners of legislation and standards that have taken years to refine.

I think rooms and cubicles are not the same thing. Cubicles are within a room. And that was clear in the standards at the time of 1992 legislation.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg244.PDF
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg293.pdf

These in substance says managers should provide clean and safe toilets for everyone and there should be separate sex FACILITIES. Now facilities is a loaded word as it means basins as well. Sanitary conveniences means the actual toilet (wc). The terminology gets confusing as everyone, including me, uses the word interchangeably for blocks, rooms or cubicles.

This isn't adding up.

So the official toilet spokespeople Maya and Jo are saying women are at risk if a biological man enters the women's toilets but it's completely fine and safe for biological women to enter the men's anytime they want?

What if a woman enters the men's toilets and it's just her and another man in there and she is attacked? Or do Maya and Jo want to conveniently ignore this?

Go and ask Maya and Jo 🥱

Again - this is Mumsnet.

Sex Matters is over here and I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss any thoughts that you have about toilets (or most of them) :

https://sex-matters.org/where-sex-matters/

A #LetThemSpeak operation is active again today

I have NEVER heard of women using the men’s when there is a perfectly good women’s option immediately available. They use the men’s (very occasionally and often out of desperation) because the women’s is unavailable for a length of time due to long queues.
You have actually just draw attention to the inadequate provision available to women the majority of the time. Women take longer than men to use the toilet because of their different anatomy. However provision doesn’t match their needs and hence the queues for women’s and not men’s.
You have also highlighted how regressive the trend of providing mixed sex multiple stalls rooms with no urinals. Because, taking aside all the other reasons these set ups are wrong, men now have to queue alongside women due to inadequate toilet provision.
You have proved everyone’s point.

At the V&A members restaurant the space is large and bright and sort of open... can't think of any other description. But it is not a corridor, as in go in one end and out the other, so is an enclosed space although a large one. As an aside, the women's loo at the front entrance on Cromwell Road is just that, a women's facility.

At the Royal Court it's the usual fairly cramped theatre facility - no corridor.

Jeez, why 50% of the population have to go through all this effin' rigmarole just to have a piss I don't know!

Maybe it’s because I’m not from the uk and this may be a cultural thing that I am not aware of, but why is washing hands considered embarrassing? (This is a genuine question, I’m from a Nordic country and we tend to be a bit more relaxed about bodily functions etc. in general, not trying to be spiteful.)

Washing hands is not considered embarrassing in the UK!

Throughout the world, and for a long time, men and women have had separate toilet facilities - that's the norm.

Used to be the norm I should have said