Article on "arguing with a TERF"

[MyAmpleSheep]

I love to keep up with the other side, so here's a lot of words just to say "it's complicated." meanwhile he ignores the obvious answer to his own question.

www.fasttrackfemme.com/p/why-you-cant-win-an-argument-with

💯

Plus - if any lurker has survived the screeds and screeds of patronising, entitled, ignorant, AI-generated, goalpost-galloping, deliberately-misunderstanding-question-dodging, all-about-the-male-interest, possibly-typing-one-handed word salad, our Righteous Friend has basically given a live-action ongoing demonstration of why women need spaces away from men.

Neat, that would be good

I think the janitors and custodians will spend masses of time investigating people who are absorbed in their mobile 'phones.

An important question about an issue which has been mentioned several times and that you keep ignoring.

Women are not a theoretical construct in a puzzle. Women are human being with bodies that have functions men's bodies do not. For about 50 years most healthy females spend ca 18-20% of our time menstruating. Sometimes some of them are pregnant instead. Sometimes some of them are lactating.

The toilets that we use have to serve our physical bodily needs.

No men or transwomen have these needs.

None of your theories have addressed our needs.

You pointed out that people experiencing a medical crisis are often completely silent.
If a victim makes no sound, a gap is useless, unless someone happens to be inside, happens to look under the gap (which again, defeats the concept of privacy) or they manage to stick their limb under the gap, which is unlikely.

You cited the statistic that 11% of cardiac arrests occur in toilets and that every minute undetected drastically reduces survival chances.
That is exactly why relying on the random chance that someone happens to walk by and spot a hand sticking out from under a stall is an outdated safety protocol.
A sensor guarantees a notification after a set timeframe. Luck guarantees nothing.

Regarding false alarms from children: children also pull fire alarms on purpose.
I'm pretty sure we still keep them, and respond to any of these pranks. It could save a life.

You pointed out that Document T mandates universal toilets be self-contained rooms, and I already addressed that by advocating for fully enclosed rooms in these spaces, and yes, accessible design requires VADs in those rooms.

I already addressed this by advocating for a design which addresses that, which a lot of American designs are also considering.
If I don't reply to something is probably because context clues or other of my comments already tell what my stance on it is.

How does your design distinguish between someone who's collapsed and someone who's watching youtube?

Also, how will they pay for the technology and extra staff to monitor it?

https://www.chalkbeat.org/2026/05/28/schools-making-budget-cuts-and-layoffs-due-to-inflation-enrollment-declines/

What design? The unplumbed portaloos in public spaces or the one with an exposed mixed-sex washing area? Neither of those address women's requirements.

By using multiple metrics.
Modern environmental sensors don't just measure whether something is occupied or not.
First, they monitor for acoustic anomalies.
A collapse has a very specific impact signature that the system recognizes instantly, causing it to trigger an alert regardless of how long the person has been in the room.
Second, advanced privacy sensors use technology like millimeter-wave radar to detect posture and micro-movements without using cameras. They can easily differentiate between someone seated upright (who is still breathing normally, shifting their weight, and moving their hands to hold a phone) and someone lying completely prone and motionless on the floor.
Lastly, if a student is simply hiding in a self-contained room for 15 minutes watching YouTube, an automated alert to staff isn't a failure, it's a feature.
It actively prevents loitering, vaping, and truancy without requiring staff to randomly patrol the bathrooms.

I'm more concerned with wanking and installing spy cameras bud.

look under the gap (which again, defeats the concept of privacy)

We are OK with door gaps in women only spaces. In an earlier post you referenced us wanting 'absolute biological privacy' we want privacy from males not from other women.

We are OK with door gaps and shared sinks/mirrors/dryers in women's toilets just as we are OK with female only changing rooms. We are not unhappy with single sex spaces as they stand, we are unhappy with men like Stevie insisting they have a right to be in those spaces.

We don't need to redesign the wheel, we just need men to stay out.

men are not women

women's spaces are not for men

the sadness of men is not women's problem to fix

So why are you so determined that in a cost of living crisis, society should revamp toilets just because a small section of society can’t accept reality? Why not just accept people use the facilities relevant to their sex? ? That would be cheaper, easier, more environmentally friendly and far less disruptive. I mean, all those single sex spaces are mixed gender so it’ll be fine right.

Ooh fancy! Sounds expensive.

I already explained in previous comments why this design is actually cheaper to make than a set of standard bathrooms.
Regarding your link though, it does not mention safety technology as a financial drain, in fact, the article notes that districts are being forced to lay off staff, including student support instructional specialists.
That's where automated sensors act as a force multiplier.
They allow a low number of staff to maintain a high level of safety and rapid response without needing to physically be in every room.

...and a bit Big Brother.

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to get the students to wear collars, like the ones they use to monitor wildlife. Perhaps they could put them on their ankles so they're less intrusive?

It's so very instructional to watch a man treat the needs of women as theoretical parameters.

@MedicalConsensus obviously has no intention of actually going and contacting anyone to have his alternate toilets tested and implemented. To him, this is nothing more than a theoretical debate, where he gets to prove his higher manly intellect by single-handedly solving a problem which has stumped other people for decades.

When this thread is over, he'll go back to his manly life of ignoring women's needs, but this time with the satisfaction of having heroically defended the rights of his poor put-upon fellow men, by proving beyond a doubt that women are simply bigoted against transwomen, and that they lie when they say it's impossible to accommodate women and transwomen in the same toilets.

Thank you, @MedicalConsensus, for proving once again that women are nothing more than accessories to men in the eyes of far too many men.

But you know what’s even cheaper…. People using the facilities already provided that are relevant to their sex. Simple, easy, convenient and has worked as long as we’ve had public facilities. If some people are upset about it, theres always therapy.

It sounds fancy, but it is actually a cost-saving measure.
You do have to ask, expensive compared to what?
First, compared to human labor, this technology is incredibly cheap. A sensor is a one-time infrastructure investment. Paying extra security or support staff to physically patrol bathrooms year-round costs exponentially more.
Second, it acts as a deterrent to vandalism.
Schools spend thousands every year repairing deliberately broken things.
When students know a room detects acoustic impacts and loitering, vandalism will sure drop drastically.
The system quickly pays for itself in reduced maintenance alone.
Finally, consider liability.
A single lawsuit stemming from a preventable medical tragedy, a severe bullying incident, or an assault in an unmonitored traditional bathroom can cost a school district millions.
We don't look at fire alarms or hallway CCTV and call them too expensive because we understand they are baseline safety infrastructure.

Even cheaper - print and laminate this

Gents, use the gents'

Oh god is this American bellend still twatting on?

Some men really can't bear heing told their illlformed stupid ideas based on their special male thinky thoughts are stupid can they

Another interesting difference between us and you (in the Brit v Yank sense rather than the women v men sense) is that we don't sue our public institutions at the drop of a hat.

The demand for absolute privacy isn't a niche request. Strangers of the same sex do not want to be heard or seen through door gaps just as strangers of the opposite sex don't.
Moving toward fully enclosed privacy units is a universal improvement for dignity, whether a facility is single-sex or mixed-sex.

The data on safety and medical emergencies applies universally.
As keeptoiletssafe noted, 11% of cardiac arrests happen in toilets.
Traditional bathrooms as they are now are an unsafe environment for an incapacitated person, regardless of the sign on the main door.
This is about moving past 20th-century design flaws to provide as much biological privacy and as much reliable safety for every single person who uses a public facility.
And as I explained in other comments, this design is cheaper long-term.

if evidence was ever required that trans advocates live in fantasy world, this guy is amply furnishing it

How shall we optimise toilet safety? Have single sex spaces which will enable a less private overall set up while preserving the privacy and dignity of users? With the side advantage of allowing efficient use of space?

NOPE!

we will have fully enclosed single occupancy bogs, redesign all buildings, change building codes so that suspended ceilings are not allowed in toilets, install some sort of AI alerting which can route directly to the head teacher's office because she sure as hell won't have anything else she could be getting on with, and use about twice the floor space for the wonder dunnies.

everything is so ridiculously complicated in trans world. it must be exhausting.