Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

What is a “good experience” in a women’s toilet?

287 replies

MyAmpleSheep · 03/07/2026 17:32

From Reddit.

List your good experiences of using single sex spaces of your gender?

Cheer up everyone’s day by listing your good experiences of using single sex spaces.
Helping fix a woman bra, giving a woman a pad, receiving compliments from women…

Can GI supporting people see why examples of a “good experience” for a trans-identifying man in a women’s toilet being - (first) to play with a woman’s underwear and (second) get involved in her menstruation - is profoundly unhelpful?

Wouldn’t a “good experience” simply be to use the facilities and leave?

How does this “cheer up everyone’s day״?

OP posts:
DeanElderberry · Yesterday 14:17

Sacred spaces are where I go to pray, usually churches or in my home, but sometimes particular spaces outdoors used for prayer for many years - such as graveyards. Prayer can be done with other people but it is addressed to God.

Going to the toilets is another thing entirely.

Sacred and private are not synonyms.

EyesOpening · Yesterday 14:18

I would say that there aren’t really “good experiences” except maybe the rare one where, IDK, you were given an Oscar style goodie bag.
There are unremarkable experiences, where everything is as it should be (toilet roll, soap, not having to touch the toilet to get into the cubicle etc), and bad experiences.
The latter, you remember because it was bad.
The former you go in, do what you’ve got to do, and leave, thinking nothing more of it.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 14:30

Kokoareyouhere · Yesterday 12:10

Most women on this thread are describing their toilet experiences as quite spare: they want to get in and out as quickly as possible and speak to no-one in the process - the opposite of the trans person in the OP, basically. You’re suggesting that women have unique needs (true) but feel the phrase “sacred palaces of femininity” is misogynistic. Would that be correct?

I remember you writing all manner of activities women do in toilets (adjusting clothing, cleaning up vomit, washing off blood, pumping breastmilk, the list is endless really) in defence of single-sex spaces. That does sound to me rather like the defence of a sacred place of femininity.

Just to be really clear here as there seems to be some confusion.

I don't believe that female toilet needs have anything to do with 'femininity' and I stand by my statement that the person who made that statement about female single sex toilets being “sacred palaces of femininity” was using that terminology in a misogynistic way. Because no female person has to be 'feminine' to need female single sex toilets for a wide variety of needs. And the poster, who has a long history on this board, regularly makes statements that are completely ideological in nature and emotionally reasoned with no evidence at all to support those statements.

Which you, Kokoareyouhere, seem to agree are valid and 'female' needs not 'feminine' needs.

You Kokoareyouhere, were not in any way 'targeted' by any discussion that was quite clearly aimed at the poster who used that terminology and posted early this morning (which I reposted for clarification at Helleofabore · Today 13:17). Therefore this post:

Helleofabore · Today 12:40
The derision towards any female needing to exclude males was unmissable.

Was not directed at you nor did it include you in the discussion as it was a direct reply to Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 12:28.

You, Kokoareyouhere, confirmed multiple times that you are not the other poster, yet have somehow believed that posters are posting about you.

Then this post Kokoareyouhere · Today 13:18:

No, it was not. To repeat, I am a woman. Why would I wish to “shame” other women? Listen to yourself.

Came again in response to the continued discussion about the post several of us were discussing before you entered the thread which you have again wrongly assumed was about your posts but were not.

Just to be clear again:

Helleofabore · Today 13:07

Of course the use of ‘sacred’ by the poster making the original statement was to position anyone who believes that female people require single sex provisions to remain female single sex is ideological to discredit any argument made that female people need their own provision due to unique needs. It was used to shame any female who admits to needing a provision that excludes group of male people that the poster insists are not causing any harm based on nothing by emotional reasoning.

Clearly says: by the poster making the original statement. ie: the post made byTransParentlyAnnoyed · Today 02:31. Meaning that it had nothing at all to do with your posts.

I hope that clarifies just who my posts have been referring to. As I said when you asked me a question, I have not made any assumptions at all about you.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 14:34

IrnBruAndDietCoke · Yesterday 13:34

Why do you keep changing what you’re saying and assuming replies to another poster are aimed at you? Multiple times? In a way that is completely taking over the thread? It’s very weird.

Thank you IrnBru for trying to alert the poster to the disconnect of their posts, but I fear that confusion reigns still.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 14:41

Helleofabore · Yesterday 14:30

Just to be really clear here as there seems to be some confusion.

I don't believe that female toilet needs have anything to do with 'femininity' and I stand by my statement that the person who made that statement about female single sex toilets being “sacred palaces of femininity” was using that terminology in a misogynistic way. Because no female person has to be 'feminine' to need female single sex toilets for a wide variety of needs. And the poster, who has a long history on this board, regularly makes statements that are completely ideological in nature and emotionally reasoned with no evidence at all to support those statements.

Which you, Kokoareyouhere, seem to agree are valid and 'female' needs not 'feminine' needs.

You Kokoareyouhere, were not in any way 'targeted' by any discussion that was quite clearly aimed at the poster who used that terminology and posted early this morning (which I reposted for clarification at Helleofabore · Today 13:17). Therefore this post:

Helleofabore · Today 12:40
The derision towards any female needing to exclude males was unmissable.

Was not directed at you nor did it include you in the discussion as it was a direct reply to Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 12:28.

You, Kokoareyouhere, confirmed multiple times that you are not the other poster, yet have somehow believed that posters are posting about you.

Then this post Kokoareyouhere · Today 13:18:

No, it was not. To repeat, I am a woman. Why would I wish to “shame” other women? Listen to yourself.

Came again in response to the continued discussion about the post several of us were discussing before you entered the thread which you have again wrongly assumed was about your posts but were not.

Just to be clear again:

Helleofabore · Today 13:07

Of course the use of ‘sacred’ by the poster making the original statement was to position anyone who believes that female people require single sex provisions to remain female single sex is ideological to discredit any argument made that female people need their own provision due to unique needs. It was used to shame any female who admits to needing a provision that excludes group of male people that the poster insists are not causing any harm based on nothing by emotional reasoning.

Clearly says: by the poster making the original statement. ie: the post made byTransParentlyAnnoyed · Today 02:31. Meaning that it had nothing at all to do with your posts.

I hope that clarifies just who my posts have been referring to. As I said when you asked me a question, I have not made any assumptions at all about you.

Edited

Sorry, to clear this up because I ended up adding something that might cause confusion

"Which you, Kokoareyouhere, seem to agree are valid and 'female' needs not 'feminine' needs."

Refers to you, Kokoareyouhere, agreeing that female needs are better described as 'female needs' and not 'feminine'.

And by ideological - it is very clear that 'sacred palaces' are meant to evoke religious ideology in my mind. Each to their own, but I consider, knowing the past history of transannoyed to be choosing those words deliberately. And with the intention of framing female needs in the way I have described in several posts now.

ouchynose · Yesterday 15:18

SwirlyGates · Yesterday 10:38

We could even call them "women's" and "mixed sex" (let's not fuck around with the euphemistic "gender neutral").

Yes!! Only problem is “Mixed Sex” would hold no appeal in this situation - would have to be “Women” and “Terfs” or something much cleverer than I can think of.

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 15:53

ouchynose · Yesterday 15:18

Yes!! Only problem is “Mixed Sex” would hold no appeal in this situation - would have to be “Women” and “Terfs” or something much cleverer than I can think of.

"Fragrant Lillies" and "XX Old Boilers" would probably work to separate these two mutually incompatable visions of womanhood, and being an Old Boiler works for me!

Helleofabore · Yesterday 15:58

The issue will become clearer and clearer while there are male people who not only reject the necessary male single sex provisions that organisations install to fulfil UK laws, but also then reject the additional provisions that are mixed sex provisions as well and continue to demand to use the female single sex provisions.

It has obviously been happening for a while now. But the more that they do this, the more court cases that go through, the more those people who have been unaware of the dynamics of the demands will see those demands as unreasonable.

Keeptoiletssafe · Yesterday 15:59

Not many things surprise me after researching toilets for a few years. Some of the pictures I have seen (that cleaners have to deal with) make you realise why so many public toilets have closed.

Firstly, we need toilets. Too many are closed down due to misuse. An academic coined the phrase ‘sex, drugs and rockin the bowl’ (as well as filling the toilet bowl up with loo paper and setting fire to it, vandalising the bowl to create a flood is a ‘laugh’). There are thousands of incidents of people weeing and defecating in streets and fields due to no toilet provision.

We need clean and safe toilets. The best designs for these are single sex designs. Toilets should be well ventilated so natural ventilation is more desirable, as is a natural light source which helps if the lights go out. Water, preferably warm, and soap for washing hands. A flush that works. Floors and cubicle walls that are non porous and can be scrubbed and bleachy water thrown over them. Handy if there’s a drain in the floor so everything can be soaked and mopped down. Gaps (of up to 15cm) at the bottom of doors and partitions to facilitate cleaning and ventilation. Space above doors and partitions, which are 180cm to 200cm tall after the floor to door gap.
Paper towels are better than hand dryers for hygiene reasons, unless cleaners are fastidious with cleaning and changing filters. A bin for hand towels needs to be provided.

As people sometimes collapse in toilets, the doors need to open from the outside and there to be a mechanism to open the door outwards (either changing the hinge or taking the door off). Toilets need to be separate sex so men do not use the gaps for voyeurism on women.

Tall ceilings can be useful as there’s a lot of air space above the door and partitions and window placement can be high up. Tall ceilings facilitate ventilation and prevents people placing cameras in ceiling vents etc. Hidden cameras are a big problem and cubicles should be as plain inside as possible so a camera can be identified easily eg. No air fresheners. If the cubicle door or lock breaks, people can be rescued over the top of the doors/partitions.

Hooks are good. There should be two placed at heights depicted in British Standards BS6465. Sometimes anti-ligature hooks maybe better. BS6465 has the dimensions and placement of toilet cubicles and rooms, based on health and safety knowledge eg. Contrasting colours for visually impaired people. I want the toilet positioned after the sanitary bin is taken into account. There needs to be twice as many units for women to achieve equity.

Doors that rest in the open position, so that when you enter the single sex washroom you can see who’s in the room with you. It prevents men hiding in the toilets.

The basins should not be communal troughs as they are embarrassing if you have blood on your hands. Individual sinks with taps that don’t splash and are set so that you do not have to lean over and get water over yourself. Sinks at different heights for children.

CCTV is retrospective but a clear shot of people entering and exiting may put some men off or enable them to be captured. If there’s a walkway rather than an outer door to the washroom, this creates good opportunity for CCTV.

I could go on for several pages…..

A lot of this isn’t new and is covered in BS6465.

We need designs that stop people having sex, doing drugs, vandalising toilets and putting hidden cameras in them. So that toilets are safe and clean for sanitation.

Sofas, wallpaper, carpets, floor-to-ceiling enclosed cubicles or rooms are not so good for health and safety. What may appear to be a very boring simple design can be a good ‘experience’.

Wishesandhorses · Yesterday 16:05

Helleofabore · Yesterday 15:58

The issue will become clearer and clearer while there are male people who not only reject the necessary male single sex provisions that organisations install to fulfil UK laws, but also then reject the additional provisions that are mixed sex provisions as well and continue to demand to use the female single sex provisions.

It has obviously been happening for a while now. But the more that they do this, the more court cases that go through, the more those people who have been unaware of the dynamics of the demands will see those demands as unreasonable.

In essence:

'I am a man who does not want to use my sex based spaces because I do not identify with that sex, find it distressing and have reasons regarding my privacy, dignity and safety' - reasonable, inclusion requires additional provisions.

'I am a man who wants to use women's single sex spaces regardless of the impact on women, and women's distress, privacy, dignity and safety is irelevant and stupid, only my feelings and wishes matter' - on your bike mate.

There are of course women who do need single sex spaces because of faith based beliefs, and have the same right to accessible facilities as everyone else. Not being prejudiced and discriminatory to them is equally important as to any other group, if inclusion and diversity actually matters. It's an 'everyone' thing. Women's diversity obviously should not be restricted to only what doesn't prove inconvenient to men.

DeanElderberry · Yesterday 16:09

@Keeptoiletssafe

You are so brilliant. Thank you again. Good colour contrast is something I'd never thought about.

DeanElderberry · Yesterday 16:11

Wishesandhorses · Yesterday 16:05

In essence:

'I am a man who does not want to use my sex based spaces because I do not identify with that sex, find it distressing and have reasons regarding my privacy, dignity and safety' - reasonable, inclusion requires additional provisions.

'I am a man who wants to use women's single sex spaces regardless of the impact on women, and women's distress, privacy, dignity and safety is irelevant and stupid, only my feelings and wishes matter' - on your bike mate.

There are of course women who do need single sex spaces because of faith based beliefs, and have the same right to accessible facilities as everyone else. Not being prejudiced and discriminatory to them is equally important as to any other group, if inclusion and diversity actually matters. It's an 'everyone' thing. Women's diversity obviously should not be restricted to only what doesn't prove inconvenient to men.

What is 'women's diversity'?

Wishesandhorses · Yesterday 16:13

Women's diversity? Vast. Encompassing women of different faiths, cultures, abilities, classes, experiences, yada yada.

DeanElderberry · Yesterday 16:18

So it's just 'women'? Slightly more than half the adult humans on the planet.

ouchynose · Yesterday 16:20

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 15:53

"Fragrant Lillies" and "XX Old Boilers" would probably work to separate these two mutually incompatable visions of womanhood, and being an Old Boiler works for me!

Fine by me 🤣🤣

Wishesandhorses · Yesterday 16:25

DeanElderberry · Yesterday 16:18

So it's just 'women'? Slightly more than half the adult humans on the planet.

I'm not sure what you mean?

My point was that women's toilets need to be accessible for all women. Not just the ones able to comply with the convenience of men and use a mixed sex space labelled 'women'. This would include women of faiths and beliefs that require single sex provision. Which doesn't make them 'sacred', but yes religious tolerance is a part of accessibility for the slightly more than half the adult humans on the planet.

TheThirteenthFairy · Yesterday 16:30

Those 'suggestions' are all about interacting with women. Women don't look forward to a chat in the toilet - they want to do the necessary on their own and leave. Operation Let Them Speak indeed!

TheThirteenthFairy · Yesterday 16:43

bittertwisted · 03/07/2026 18:52

but I have never knowingly met a trans person in the loo
not once in 55 years

Don't be silly - you've met loads, but you just didn't notice! So ner!

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · Yesterday 16:45

I'm particularly keen on the point Keeptoiletssafe made about sink height. It's a good experience when the person of short stature you are accompanying to the toilet can wash their hands without you having to lift them into the air.

Ereshkigalangcleg · Yesterday 16:45

FlirtsWithRhinos · Yesterday 15:53

"Fragrant Lillies" and "XX Old Boilers" would probably work to separate these two mutually incompatable visions of womanhood, and being an Old Boiler works for me!

Happy to use the old boilers loo even though I am younger than many of these men 🤷‍♀️ at least they wouldn’t be in it

TheThirteenthFairy · Yesterday 16:46

BettyBooper · 03/07/2026 18:58

I've never been arrested, seen a badger in the wild or visited Australia. What's your point?

I've never even seen a hedgehog and the only stag beetle I ever saw was in 1965.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 16:50

DeanElderberry · Yesterday 16:18

So it's just 'women'? Slightly more than half the adult humans on the planet.

Yes Dean.

"Women's diversity obviously should not be restricted to only what doesn't prove inconvenient to men."

WishesandHorses was making a general comment about the fact that some people do wish to ignore the needs of women if those needs are inconvenient to men.

DeanElderberry · Yesterday 17:00

AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment · Yesterday 16:45

I'm particularly keen on the point Keeptoiletssafe made about sink height. It's a good experience when the person of short stature you are accompanying to the toilet can wash their hands without you having to lift them into the air.

Not just sink height, soap and towel dispenser height as well.

TeaWithASplashOfMilkPlease · Yesterday 17:03

Kokoareyouhere · Yesterday 12:10

Most women on this thread are describing their toilet experiences as quite spare: they want to get in and out as quickly as possible and speak to no-one in the process - the opposite of the trans person in the OP, basically. You’re suggesting that women have unique needs (true) but feel the phrase “sacred palaces of femininity” is misogynistic. Would that be correct?

I remember you writing all manner of activities women do in toilets (adjusting clothing, cleaning up vomit, washing off blood, pumping breastmilk, the list is endless really) in defence of single-sex spaces. That does sound to me rather like the defence of a sacred place of femininity.

It’s the defence of spaces where women have privacy and dignity away from men.

The things they do there don’t matter, shouldn’t matter to good men; good men recognise that women deserve privacy and dignity for intimate matters, and don’t presume to take that away from them.

Women’s toilets aren’t a sacred place. But they are a place for women. That is all there should be to the matter.

Cailleach1 · Yesterday 17:29

BettyBooper · 03/07/2026 18:58

I've never been arrested, seen a badger in the wild or visited Australia. What's your point?

I’ve seen a badger in the wild. On a late evening walk with my dog. Irish coastal countryside. Thankfully dog was a bit of a nincompoop as he chased after the badger, but did an about turn when I roared after him to come back. Good thing, as they have lock jaws, and it wouldn’t have ended well for the bow wow.

Not been arrested, or been to Australia though.

Swipe left for the next trending thread