Gender again. Sorry!

[AndyRM]

You have no idea how many people, male and female, self exclude from using the leisure centre because of the mixed sex facilities, or how many incidents go unreported.

We know that mixed sex spaces increase offending simply because they increase opportunities. You're both extrapolating from 'I've never seen anything in this one place' to 'It's never a problem anywhere'.

I've never seen anyone catapulted through a car windscreen so why is everyone making a fuss about seat belts? It's the same logic.

We all know why we have single sex spaces.

Neither do you and no I'm not.

Do people actually make a fuss about seatbelts anymore?

And yes, single sex spaces are important, vital even in some cases.

I just don't have the same issue with mixed sex spaces that you do.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I just don't have the same issue with mixed sex spaces that you do

That's sorted then. @AndyRM and @icowden can't see a problem - there is no problem.
Reminds me of parliamentary debate on the tampon tax - use soap.

 

[AndyRM]

That's sorted then. @AndyRM and @icowden can't see a problem - there is no problem.
Reminds me of parliamentary debate on the tampon tax - use soap.

Aye, right enough, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Sake. No wonder people can't be arsed with this thread.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Do people actually make a fuss about seatbelts anymore? I just don't have the same issue with mixed sex spaces that you do.

No they don't anymore, because we now know that they are safer than not wearing one. In the same way we know that women are safer in single sex spaces, even though some of us pretend they aren't.

You're a 6ft plus man with lots of tattoos as I recall. I would think you're pretty safe from being assaulted by a woman in any space.
Surely even you can see that the risks are asymmetrical.

 

[AndyRM]

No they don't anymore, because we now know that they are safer than not wearing one. In the same way we know that women are safer in single sex spaces, even though some of us pretend they aren't.

You're a 6ft plus man with lots of tattoos as I recall. I would think you're pretty safe from being assaulted by a woman in any space.
Surely even you can see that the risks are asymmetrical.

View attachment 15498

Yes, I can, as I've said before, perhaps not using that exact language.

 

[icowden]

No they don't anymore, because we now know that they are safer than not wearing one. In the same way we know that women are safer in single sex spaces, even though some of us pretend they aren't.

Again, you are missing the point. We don't "know" that at all. You think that. Many other people may think that, but there isn't a lot of strong evidence a lot of the time in either direction.

Up until the 1800s men and women used the same facilities. In the second half of the 1850s public toilets became more common and were largely designed for men. So it's really only the last 150 years or so where gendered toilets have been a "thing". And most of the "thing" was about keeping women in their place. Women should stay home, do the laundry and look after the children. It's the virtuous thing. Then, to preserve a women's virtue outside the house they should not socialise with men - so women's carriages, women's reading rooms, separate rooms for women in pubs, because women are weaker and might explode or faint or something.

So a lot of segregation of women's spaces came from the patriarchy trying to keep women in their place.

Note: At no point have I said that there should not be women only spaces. In many places it works well - schools, rape crisis centres, prisons etc.

What I have said is that I think the toilet thing is pretty much a dead cat distracting anyone from actually having a useful conversation.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Again, you are missing the point. We don't "know" that at all. You think that. Many other people may think that, but there isn't a lot of strong evidence a lot of the time in either direction.

There is no strong evidence that women are safer in single sex spaces than mixed sex ones?
Can you find me any UK cases where a woman has filmed other women for sexual purposes in a single sex space? There are plenty of cases of men doing it in mixed sex spaces. There are train carriages in Japan and other countries just for women because the mixed sex ones attract perverts.

Up until the 1800s men and women used the same facilities.

There were no public facilities until 1850, after which they built men's loos. Where's your evidence that these early 'facilities', such as they were eg buckets behind partitions in factories and mills, were as safe for women as single sex ones would have been?

In the second half of the 1850s public toilets became more common and were largely designed for men. So it's really only the last 150 years or so where gendered toilets have been a "thing". And most of the "thing" was about keeping women in their place. Women should stay home, do the laundry and look after the children. It's the virtuous thing. Then, to preserve a women's virtue outside the house they should not socialise with men - so women's carriages, women's reading rooms, separate rooms for women in pubs, because women are weaker and might explode or faint or something.

So a lot of segregation of women's spaces came from the patriarchy trying to keep women in their place.

The desire to prevent women having more active lives was certainly a component but it's nuts to suggest that, having decided women could use public toilets, the reason they were given separate ones was 'patriarchy'.

In fact it was single sex spaces like toilets and train carriages that allowed women to partake more fully in society because it reduced the fear of assault.

Note: At no point have I said that there should not be women only spaces. In many places it works well - schools, rape crisis centres, prisons etc.

What I have said is that I think the toilet thing is pretty much a dead cat distracting anyone from actually having a useful conversation.

No, you've said (literally) that mixed sex toilets, including ones where women and girls have to pass men peeing in urinals, 'work' and 'aren't a big deal'. You just mean they can be dismissed because they aren't a big deal to you.

 

[icowden]

There is no strong evidence that women are safer in single sex spaces than mixed sex ones?
Can you find me any UK cases where a woman has filmed other women for sexual purposes in a single sex space? There are plenty of cases of men doing it in mixed sex spaces. There are train carriages in Japan and other countries just for women because the mixed sex ones attract perverts.

I can find you plenty when men have filmed women in a women's toilet. So they aren't that "safe" (by your measure).

The desire to prevent women having more active lives was certainly a component but it's nuts to suggest that, having decided women could use public toilets, the reason they were given separate ones was 'patriarchy'.

Why?

In fact it was single sex spaces like toilets and train carriages that allowed women to partake more fully in society because it reduced the fear of assault.

And to control women.

No, you've said (literally) that mixed sex toilets, including ones where women and girls have to pass men peeing in urinals, 'work' and 'aren't a big deal'. You just mean they can be dismissed because they aren't a big deal to you.

No, I mean that they didn't seem like a big deal to the people I saw using them. Obviously it's a tiny anecdotal sample in a deliberately provocative environment.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I can find you plenty when men have filmed women in a women's toilet. So they aren't that "safe" (by your measure).

So it's men that are the problem then? They're certainly safer than mixed sex facilities. Your preferred option is to give men even easier access than they have already.

And to control women.

I don't see how introducing single sex train carriages controlled women. Historically, they gave women the opportunity to travel without a male escort by increasing women's safety. They are popular amongst women in cities that have them.

 

[classic33]

"In 1423, a 128-seat toilet hanging over the River Thames at the mouth of the Walbrook was established by London's first mayor, Richard Whittington. (He is the Dick of talking cat pantomime fame - although it seems he probably didn't have a cat, and almost certainly not one that could speak.)

This "house of easement" was divided into 64 seats for men and the same for women, and is believed to be the first segregated-by-sex public toilet. Its location meant it was washed out by the tide twice a day."

 

[icowden]

So it's men that are the problem then? They're certainly safer than mixed sex facilities. Your preferred option is to give men even easier access than they have already.

No, my point is that you can't police toilets. Bad shoot will happen. Yes, it will probably be caused by men.

Do you know what though? Some men aren't cünts. You might find it's actually safer because the number of men who might like to help and protect women might just be larger than the population of deviants.

I know your preferred point of view is that all men are evil predatory sexual perverts, but that just isn't the case.

 

[AuroraSaab]

This "house of easement" was divided into 64 seats for men and the same for women, and is believed to be the first segregated-by-sex public toilet. Its location meant it was washed out by the tide twice a day."

So 600 years ago they understood why women needed separate toilets. Marvellous.

No, my point is that you can't police toilets. Bad shoot will happen. Yes, it will probably be caused by men.

You kinda can though. If a woman sees a man in a women's single sex space she can raise the alarm or ask for him to be removed. She can't ask for him to be removed from your supposedly unproblematic mixed sex urinal toilets.

Do you know what though? Some men aren't cünts. You might find it's actually safer because the number of men who might like to help and protect women might just be larger than the population of deviants.

That relies on men actually being present in order to jump in. It relies on them seeing the incident. It relies on them being willing to get involved. It does nothing to assail the concerns of a woman going into an empty mixed sex toilet or changing room and a man following her in.

I know your preferred point of view is that all men are evil predatory sexual perverts, but that just isn't the case.

No, it's not the case but 98% of sex offenders are men and 1 in 4 women have been raped so quite a few must be.
I know lots of lovely men. I don't think any of them should be in women's single sex spaces because we don't base broader safeguarding on the character of individuals. I have no idea why you continue to insist they should have access.

 

[icowden]

So 600 years ago they understood why women needed separate toilets. Marvellous.

Didn't catch on for another 400 years though.

You kinda can though. If a woman sees a man in a women's single sex space she can raise the alarm or ask for him to be removed. She can't ask for him to be removed from your supposedly unproblematic mixed sex urinal toilets.

Because no man anywhere has ever been chucked out of somewhere. Right. You clearly don't watch enough American movies.

That relies on men actually being present in order to jump in. It relies on them seeing the incident. It relies on them being willing to get involved. It does nothing to assail the concerns of a woman going into an empty mixed sex toilet or changing room and a man following her in.

True. How likely do we think it is that a woman alone goes into an empty toilet?

No, it's not the case but 98% of sex offenders are men and 1 in 4 women have been raped so quite a few must be.

That last statistic is somewhat bollocks. It's 1 in 4 have been raped or sexually assaulted which includes indecent exposure and dick pics.

> I have no idea why you continue to insist they should have access.<

I don't. This is part of the problem with your tunnel vision. What I have said is that there is some anecdotal evidence that suggests that it might not make a huge amount of difference in many cases.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

What I have said is that there is some anecdotal evidence that suggests that it might not make a huge amount of difference in many cases.

Job sorted then.
You know what @icowden, I think you're somewhat missing the point.

 

[AuroraSaab]

How likely do we think it is that a woman alone goes into an empty toilet?

When a woman has to use your unproblematic mixed sex with urinals toilets how does she know if the communal area is empty or not?
I don't routinely go to the loo with a friend.

That last statistic is somewhat bollocks. It's 1 in 4 have been raped or sexually assaulted which includes indecent exposure and dick pics.

I don't think it includes dick pics. Indecent exposure is 15% of the stats. 1 in 4 women is quite a lot though surely. Well I think it's quite a lot, I guess you don't.

I don't. This is part of the problem with your tunnel vision. What I have said is that there is some anecdotal evidence that suggests that it might not make a huge amount of difference in many cases.

The anecdotal evidence being your trip to the theatre from which you've extrapolated that there really isn't a problem.

We all know why women and girls need single sex spaces, including toilets: safety, privacy, dignity. It's tedious that people on here pretend they don't get it.