Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

I never understand the obsession with toilets. The only reason for having different cubicles for men and women is (I understand from the women in my family) because the women's are usually less disgusting than the mens.

Seriously? You honestly think that's the only reason for single sex loos? Would you genuinely feel just as safe about your 10 year old daughter going into the Mens toilets on her own as the Womens?

The toilet issue is fairly easily resolved in a couple of ways. This judgement isn't about toilets.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Policy change at BTP as Transport Police male officers who identify as women can no longer perform intimate searches on women.

https://www.gbnews.com/news/british...earch-policy-supreme-court-ruling-trans-woman

 

[icowden]

Seriously? You honestly think that's the only reason for single sex loos? Would you genuinely feel just as safe about your 10 year old daughter going into the Mens toilets on her own as the Womens?

Yes. People are largely in a toilet to go to the toilet. If it's just a cubicle, no-one else is going to be in the cubicle.
Anyway - you missed the point which is that you get rid of the concept of mens and womens toilets. The only distinction is whether or not a toilet has urinals and that can be solved through good design.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Unisex spaces - including toilets - are less safe for women and girls than single sex ones. This is a known fact. That 'less safe' applies to everything from physical assault to hiding tiny cameras.

If you think a 10 year old girl is statistically just as safe going into the Men's toilets as into the Women's you are frankly nuts.

Yes, you can provide unisex toilets that are more safe but they aren't foolproof and don't necessarily provide the privacy that single sex ones do.

 

[Stevo 666]

I said it upthread - repurpose the disabled toilets to include extra authorised users.

 

[CXRAndy]

One question regarding the Supreme Court ruling: Is it the case that the Supreme Court has done no more than interpreted what the law states, stated the legal interpretation of the meaning of words (like a dictionary might but in legalese)?

I always thought that courts interpret laws made by politicians and the Supreme Court has said that the law, as written by politicians, means x, y & z.

Thus, if the legal interpretation of what politicians have written does not meet what the politicians intended then it's up to the politicians to ammend or rewrite their laws such that it does mean what they intended.

Ian

It's clarified the law as it was meant to be. Stonewall and many others have deliberately mis represented the law and used oppression, cancel, bully tactics to suppress questions.

It's taken a very long time, but the Supreme court has sorted it out with clear concise reasons

 

[AuroraSaab]

I said it upthread - repurpose the disabled toilets to include extra authorised users.

No, sorry. A third additional unisex space is needed. Disabled people shouldn't have to give up their spaces anymore than women should.

 

[Psamathe]

I never understand the obsession with toilets. The only reason for having different cubicles for men and women is (I understand from the women in my family) because the women's are usually less disgusting than the mens.

Seriously? You honestly think that's the only reason for single sex loos? Would you genuinely feel just as safe about your 10 year old daughter going into the Mens toilets on her own as the Womens?

The toilet issue is fairly easily resolved in a couple of ways. This judgement isn't about toilets.

My local swimming pool (Council run) has mixed changing rooms ie no segragation on any basis). We seem to survive.

Ian

 

[Stevo 666]

No, sorry. A third additional unisex space is needed. Disabled people shouldn't have to give up their spaces anymore than women should.

Given how underused disabled toilets are, it shouldn't be a problem. I can't remember the last time I saw a disabled person going into or coming out of one.

 

[AuroraSaab]

My local swimming pool (Council run) has mixed changing rooms ie no segragation on any basis). We seem to survive.

Ian

Says a man - who is unlikely to be the subject of uncomfortable behaviour from other men whilst getting changed. This is just the old chestnut of
'I don't care about it so it doesn't really matter'.

By 'We seem to survive' you mean you. You actually have no idea whether the women and girls who use those changing rooms are happy with it or have to do it because otherwise they can't swim. How many women self exclude on the basis that they don't want to change with men? How many use unisex spaces reluctantly? It's not consent when there is no alternative.

Surveys repeatedly show that women don't want to change with men present. Stats show unisex spaces aren't as safe.

 

[AndyRM]

He hasn't figured out that instead of pictures of a man and a woman you can just use the word "Toilet".

You could even go as far as "Toilet Cubicles" and "Toilet Urinals".

I never understand the obsession with toilets. The only reason for having different cubicles for men and women is (I understand from the women in my family) because the women's are usually less disgusting than the mens.

They aren't. Having worked as a cleaner, I can unhappily confirm that both facilities are feral depending on the location.

Might pop for a slash after work at the Sage (now Glasshouse) in their gender neutral toilets which has never been a problem ever since the place opened.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Given how underused disabled toilets are, it shouldn't be a problem. I can't remember the last time I saw a disabled person going into or coming out of one.

Nah. Disabled toilets are for those with a disability, just like women's toilets are for women.

Might pop for a slash after work at the Sage (now Glasshouse) in their gender neutral toilets which has never been a problem ever since the place opened.

Never been a problem for you, you mean. Once again, you assume consent from women and girls just because you don't mind.

 

[CXRAndy]

With self ID dead and those with a GRC, for all intent and purposes its worth as much as

 

[matticus]

My local swimming pool (Council run) has mixed changing rooms ie no segragation on any basis). We seem to survive.

The last few (council) pools I've been to had a mixed changing area (but with cubicles). The TOILETS however were segregated.

I have no data on survival rates (apart from a sample of one participant, to whom I must refer with the perpendicular pronoun).

 

[Psamathe]

The last few (council) pools I've been to had a mixed changing area (but with cubicles). The TOILETS however were segregated.

I have no data on survival rates (apart from a sample of one participant, to whom I must refer with the perpendicular pronoun).

I wasn't responsing to the specific issue of toilets raised here, more to the press resports widely using changing areas as their case. Local pool I was thinking of has recently (year or 2 ago) gone through a massive rebuild and that included the mixed changing areas so thinking that they are not historical legacy with no money to improve.

Ian