Captain’s Bar, Edinburgh

[AccidentallyWesAnderson]

Probably need to wait for the image to be approved but someone has left a recent review, Carol Anne, four days ago complaining of men using the women’s toilet.

Does the ‘legally-binding Global Human Rights Policy and Code of Non-discrimination, which prohibit discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics’ allow them to mark a single use women’s toilet as ‘women’, yet continue to let males use it? Lovely to note GC women (those that don’t live in fantasy land) aren’t welcome in their parting shot.

1. The government published a technical call for evidence on toilet provision for men and women in October 2020. This followed concerns that increasing numbers of publicly accessible toilets were being converted into ‘gender neutral’ facilities with shared waiting and hand-washing facilities, causing safety and privacy concerns especially for women.

31. Of the 538 respondents who provided supporting evidence with their answer (including ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not answered’ responses):

• 57% stated single-sex toilets should always be provided
• 29% stated universal toilets by themselves should not be provided
• 26% stated ‘and/or’ should class single-sex toilets as the default
• 18% stated universal toilets should only be provided in addition to single- sex toilets
• 10% stated universal toilets should always be provided

Toilet provision in buildings other than dwellings - GOV.UK

This was what led up to the famous Doc T 2024 addition to building regs, which makes single-sex toilets a requirement, and universal toilets [which have to meet certain specifications, they can't just be an existing toilet with a new sign on the door] as an optional extra; in a small premises, if there isn't enough space for single-sex toilets, an universal toilet is acceptable.

These are the Building Regs for England and for new builds - plus significant alterations to older buildings. I wonder does removing women's toilets and replacing them with new, building regs compliant, universal toilets count as significant alterations?
I wouldn't be surprised, so some older buildings no longer provide single-sex facilities may be in breach of building regs.

This. She's got them bang to rights, and idiots that they are, they've put several forms of blatant intentional discrimination in writing. Fire up Naomi, the bank is open.

The virtuous response from the owner documenting that she is not just breaking the law but excluding people with a protected belief.

Doesn’t sound like it.

Theres no such thing as legal binding global human rights policy.

It's made up fucking nonsense.

I love MN is why and it came up in Active. And I have an opinion about this issue. Not enough to search out surveys though. Something for the GC to be grateful for LOL.

As pp said, learn how weighted polls work.

https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology

I know exactly how they work. People who care about the issue (either for or against) fill them in. People who are meh, or only slightly interested don't bother.

The vast majority of people think trans is a non-issue. I don't mean they support trans right. I just mean, they don't think about it, on a day-to-day basis.

This will continue until it becomes an actual offence to enter the wrong toilet, like eg. shoplifting, drink driving, and even then it can happen by mistake. At the moment they can only be banned from premises at most and who wants to do that?

you seem quite poorly informed about this issue so it’s really quite unimportant if you “search out surveys” or not.

It’s not a trans issue. Women don’t have a problem with females in their spaces, including ones who are trans.

It’s a right to single sex spaces issue. The majority want that. You can wave it away all you like.

Quite.

I agree that most people don’t think about it on a daily basis. They think about it when it affects them, or when there is something relevant in the news.

Being able to give a fuck about people who aren't you is basically the hallmark of social functioning.

Its bullshit blah and shows that the management cant even copy and paste from the legislation to understand their legal obligations.

And to put their bias against a PC in writing in public 🙃

If this is across the board HRMC needs to add that business to their red flag list.

Yes definitely. Surprised it’s still up tbh.

Very well said ! 👏

Anyone with a child considers that an issue.

Its why young children are brought to the female toilet and mothers go in with young boys but would let a couple of girls go in together.

Drunk people and staff allowing a man to follow a woman into what should be a female only space massive red flag as a shithole imo SA risk v perves engaging in public sex🤮

In contrast I have been in two hospitals this week and was delighted to find single sex toilets with door gaps under and over, the correct placement of hooks, and even natural ventilation in one (much better than mechanical). The only grot was around the ‘feet’ of the cubicles which is understandably the most difficult to clean. If anyone was to have a medical emergency or other incident they could be seen and heard in these single sex toilets.

If the "Intern" in charge of the SM cant work out the EA10 applies its not a suprise they think its a great virtue signal.

It was written by the woman owner apparently.

Well she'll find out misguided passion is expensive when it leads her to discriminate.

If I spoke about this issue tomorrow morning at the school gate, the assorted parents would look at me like I was nuts and change the subject to swimming lessons, the weekend's party, or that day's lunch menu.

Trans issues (which is what this is for all the BS about men in general) isn't on the average person's radar. I appreciate it is for people on this thread. But the general population aren't interested. It's a non issue.

The first question is as always is ... 🤨

Is the owner applying the same "I Know Best" to H&S and Food Safety. Etc?

Anyway
If I remember correctly a lot of English owners had to wind their TRA in when they were "educated" that the Booze Licensing required single sex provision where there was block provision.

Why are you going round these threads parroting this same shit?

No one is saying people are bothered about this issue (women retaining single sex spaces and not ‘trans’ which you keep dialling back to), every second of every day, you are the only one saying this. However the majority of women want to retain single sex spaces, especially when it comes to toilets, changing rooms, rape crisis centres etc etc. Sorry you don’t want to accept that.

You do realise women are able to care about more than one issue, at the same time?