“Our facilities are places of privacy, dignity and respect. We ask you not to approach or question anyone about their use of facilities as this could constitute harassment”

[BlueOrangeRed]

In my work I sometimes visit universities and saw this on a poster today in the ladies toilets.

Is this the latest thing following the single sex spaces Supreme Court ruling? It’s the first time I’ve seen something like this.

I’m quite interested to know if it was put up following someone complaining they’ve been approached or questioned. Or whether it’s more of a preemptive attempt to ensure no one is ever questioned or approached.

I would disagree. Just because something ‘could’ constitute harassment (as written) it does not mean that it does. Harrassment in law I believe, usually consists of 2 or more incidents and also needs a ‘reasonable’ test. Is it reasonable to ask an obvious male to leave a female toilet?

I'd contact the office in that institution that deals with over-sight and legal issues. They probably have not sanctioned this. Take a photo of this poster and attach - outlining your concerns.

Contact 'Sex Matters' and/or' Legal Feminist' and ask their advice.

You are wrong.

That is what the other signage is for.

They do not need to add the 🚹🚺 symbols to info sheets that go into both toilets.

No because you are taking the law into your own hands. You are not authorised to assume police powers even if you put on a Paw Patrol deputy star. This law has nothing to do with harrassment.

The implication of the sign is that anyone can use either toilet and that to question their use would be harassment, not that people should use the correct toilet for their sex and that any misuse should be reported to management.

If they meant the latter, that is what the sign would have said. As it is the sign just creates uncertainty.

Police powers? Nobody is suggesting that anyone carry out a citizen's arrest.

Sometimes people just don't know that they are parking in a reserved spot/using the wrong toilet/swimming the wrong way around the swimming lane/that there is a queue. Civilised people can usually manage these kinds of situations without police intervention.

I do not agree sign implies anyone can use any toilet. It simply says confrontations between anyone also using the toilets could amount to harrassment so do not do it.

Do you see signs at the zoo that says do not feed the animals as implying that any animal can use any cage?

Police powers do include confronting law breakers

I wonder if there is a similar sign in the men's toilet?

Do you see signs at the zoo that says do not feed the animals as implying that any animal can use any cage?

No, because the equivalent sign would be

"Our facilities are places of privacy, dignity and respect. We ask you not to approach or question anyone who is feeding the animals because this could constitute harassment"

You would clearly need another sign making it clear that visitors should not feed the animals, particularly if people were actively campaigning to be able to feed the animals.

Why not be clear?

And yet every day people will say something along the lines of "sorry, there is no parking here at school pick up time" without having to call the police.

The important sign is the one on the door that says 'Women'.

Presumably the women's toilet is provided in order to be complaint with building regs, etc. Whatever the reason, the point is that it has been designated for women, and that, as the SC clarified, means biological women only.

This sign undermines the spirit of the main sign.
Nobody other than biological women has the right to use that space.
There is nothing wrong with the people who are entitled to use the space to assert that fact, firmly but politely.

For instance, as a gender-non-conforming woman, I've been 'harassed' by women saying 'Excuse me, this is the ladies!'
I felt they were doing the right thing by challenging somebody who at first glance looked like they shouldn't be there.
A pleasant reply 'It's OK, I'm in the right place!' was enough to get that second look that immediately reassured them that I am a woman - it only takes a proper look and a few seconds to recognise all the features that make a woman recognisable regardless of her personal aesthetic.

This is an established practice - anyone who at first glance looks like they are in the wrong toilet has been challenged, and it's been OK. It was understood that it was to protect the privacy, dignity and respect of the people who were entitled to use the space.

It's only because of this recent fad of men insisting on using the women's toilet that it has become problematic.

The 'info'sheets are quite clearly politically motivated and manipulative, most likely issued by a particular sub- committeee of some description with a niche interest.

Furthermore It is making barely disguised threats of legal action to women who might complain about a man knowingly using the women's facilities against the recent ruling, and also against workplace regulations.

Good point. I suspect not.

It manipulates the language of 'dignity and privacy' in an attempt to reverse the reasoning behind single sex facilities and to scare off women who might complain or take issue. Men should not be in the women's facilities. All women have a legal right to single sex facilities in their place of work.

It's clearly designed to intimidate and silence. I'd be contacting the legal part of the University and say you found that sign caused you alarm and distress in it's obvious political bias and attempt to silence women (I believe this is the wording in the harassment laws).

If I thought I or another person had the potential to be in immediate trouble in the toilet or toilet washroom I am not going to wait for the police, ambulance or fire brigade. You don’t always have time.

I saved the life of someone by intervening. Women have also prevented potential deaths, assaults and voyeurism in toilets by intervening. I know because I research and have evidence of real life incidents in the U.K.

Toilets are used for sex and drugs. But this message says respect that.

I agree it could obviously be dangerous though so women have to judge - we are used to having to constantly assess the situation and do a cost/benefit analysis. Indeed women often get the help of other women or men around them to confront a man in the women’s toilets.

The British Transport Police have a safety campaign:
See it. Say it. Sorted.

This university message is saying:
Don’t see it. Don’t say it. Not sorted.

It's interesting that you've changed the direct quote "approach or question" to "confrontations"

Also whoever wrote the sign originally - and you I suspect - knows very well that approaching and questioning someone DOESN'T constitute harassment as they otherwise wouldn't have said "could constitute....etc"

'Privacy and dignity' is phrasing often used by women arguing for the necessity of single-sex provision. As usual, they take our words and twist them to conclude 'give men whatever they want'. Typical.

I agree. It wasn’t just the message that irked me, but the way it was expressed, which felt like an appropriation of the language used to argue for single sex toilets. Maybe I should email the EDI email address and say my ‘safe space’ of the women’s loos no longer feels safe.

Good point on whether the same sign is up in the men’s toilets!

Confronting law breakers isn't a police power. Police powers include, amoung others, arresting in certain situations, searching people and places in certain situations, entering premises in order to arrest or search, or ensure safety in certain situations, and preserving the peace.

Confronting law breakers, or people breaking social conventions and institutional policies, is not something that needs a legal authority. Anyone can do it. It's not unlawful.

@BlueOrangeRed My suggestions is to set up a burner email and write to them with some of the points from this thread.

Whatever it is, please do take some kind action with a relevent authority in the institution.