You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Situation: a shop sells oranges and apples.
Problem #1: there aren't enough oranges to meet demand.
Problem #2: some people don't people really like either oranges or bananas.
Solution: Hey, we'll focus on selling bananas instead, but oranges and apples will still be available to those who want them.
Argument: But some people don't like bananas! We should listen to them. What do you know about oranges, you apple-eating mofo?
Sorry, I didn't realise that after 50 or so posts we suddenly needed citations when up until now we just asserted.
If I can be arsed I'll go and find some, but to be honest as nobody ever convinces anyone online forums I don't think I'll bother.
Ask the women you know if they prefer single sex or mixed sex toilets. That's what I did.
Thanks for being mostly civil.
It's called "burden of proof" and it's not a radically new phenomenon when one is presenting statements as facts. I'll happily revise my opinion if you can show me the studies you're referencing. Be arsed, or concede that you need to drop that argument as random nonsense you've just made up.
Because, simply, anecdotes are not evidence. If I asked say half a dozen women I knew what they thought then I'd either get six hating the idea, six loving the idea or something in between. This is insufficient to then be bold enough to speak on behalf of what "most women" prefer, it's the quality of data beloved of skin cream adverts.
And in any case - so what? As I've said several times now, don't like them, don't use them. What's the problem here, why do you remotely care?
We got to the third page before anyone asked for a citation, I thought we were just sharing opinions. For example, you earlier said "the dangers present in a shared bathroom is the same as one in a unisex one", a statement presented as fact.
I know it's a little unfair to trawl through your comments then jump on the one that can be made to fit my argument - my point is that suddenly asking for citations after 80 comments is also a little unfair.
I didn't 'randomly make up nonsense', I asked people what they thought. I know that's not dissertation standard evidence, but it's not 'making up nonsense'. Come on Cougar, it's been a pretty civilised discussion on a tricky subject up until now, don't start making it personal.
I found it harder than I expected to find any evidence. As I said earlier my opinion was formed by talking to women, who nearly all said the prefer single sex provision, and many of who said they would simply not use mixed sex provision. Anyway, here are a couple of articles that go some way to agreeing with me:
https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2013/09/13/unisex-toilets-british-women-most-reluctant-share-
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/pupils-missing-school-because-dont-15839558.amp
But seriously, ask the women you know. Don't give any opinions first, just ask if they prefer single sex or mixed sex toilets. And don't argue, just listen to what they say.
I didn't really get what you were saying with your fruit shop analogy, so I'm not even going to attempt to answer that.
And why do I remotely care? As I said earlier it doesn't bother me personally, but women I've spoken to feel that some or all of what they consider to be 'their' toilets are being changed to mixed toilets that they do not want to use, that as usually women are losing out. If extra toilets were being provided they wouldn't be bothered.
At the risk of repeating the exact same point only to be repeatedly ignored by those with an axe to grind… If a site keeps nearly all its women only toilets, and turns its biggest men only toilets into suitable toilets for all… or creates additional toilets and makes them available to all… is that a problem? Is the problem with the removal of women’s toilets in significant numbers (an understandable complaint) or with having gender-neutral toilet facilities at all?
I opened this thread assuming it would be about the toilets at the Old Vic Theatre.
Last year, the theatre crowd-funded £100,000 towards refurbishment of the toilets. Front and centre was a pledge to “double the number of ladies’ toilets.
Following nine months of renovation, the new toilets have been proudly unveiled AND THEY ARE ALL GENDER NEUTRAL.
Quote from @oldvictheatre twitter
"Our loos now offer ‘self-selection’ rather than being labelled male or female. This takes a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, approach following advice from surveys conducted with focus groups."
https://twitter.com/oldvictheatre/status/1179336786537005057
I wonder what 'focus groups' they consulted with?
Historic Scotland have done something similar (making all toilets 'gender neural' aka mixed-sex.
They did actually carry out an EqIA (Equality Impact Assessment) before doing so. What is an EqIA? An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) is a way of systematically taking equal opportunities into consideration when making a decision.
The Historic Scotland one found that the proposed changes would have a NEGATIVE impact on the protected characteristics of SEX, PREGNANCY/MATERNITY, and ETHNICITY. But they went ahead and made the changes anyway.
Whilst a good point,
a) Has that ever happened in the history of ever? And,
b) If that looked likely to occur then surely that’s what you should be protesting against, rather than being against their existence at all, no?
a) This is exactly what is happening
b) No one is protesting against the creation of additional gender neutral (mixed sex) toilets
It’s a pub – very few men are going to need a “sitting down” toilet
Some of my favourite ‘log flumes’ were achieved in sit-down pub toilets. Very handy places. Beats crapping in the urinal.
In those specific examples… having no women only toilet facilities at all is a really bad move… for many reasons, agreed. Of course, you can have both gender neutral toilet facilities and women only ones, on the same premises, and plenty of places are making this work for everyone. I only mentioned the Manchester University example because on visits there in the past year, for an open day and a gig, they seemed to have got this absolutely bob on, and anyone genuinely concerned should check out what they have done. Hopefully their example will spread.
If you have women only toilets then you must have men only toilets - equality doesn't run in just one direction.
Just do away with urinals and only have traps everywhere - so all toilets are 'gender-neutral' - what's the problem?
Some women only feel comfortable in women only toilets… so keep them. The rest of us can use whatever works for the place. Some men only facilities can still make sense as well… just for efficient use of space in busy areas (urinals offer that). None of this equates to dismissing gender neutral toilets… they are a genuinely useful facility available to everyone to use. We’ll (hopefully) be seeing more of them as people get used to the idea. Although I thought that back in the 90s, when bars in Manchester started featuring them… so perhaps not… this might result in another false start.
If you have women only toilets then you must have men only toilets – equality doesn’t run in just one direction.
Just do away with urinals and only have traps everywhere – so all toilets are ‘gender-neutral’ – what’s the problem?
It the first sentence a response to some posters saying 'make the gents bogs gender neutral'?
As for your second comment. That's exactly why there aren't many women on the forum.
I am a women. I'm also 47 old. Hand on heart, in my years on this earth, I've never yet seen shit of blood smeared on the walls of a women's toilet. I've seen plenty blocked up with too much paper (due to crappy flush mechanisms), plus overflowing sanitary bins.
Any time I've used a public toilet that is shared with men, at best it smells pissy, frequently there's piss on the seat and floor, and skid marks in the pan.
It's quite common for women with children (say a toddler and a baby) to have to wee with the cubicle door open, simply because they can't all fit inside and there are no more suitable facilities. Religious women may need to remove and adjust a head covering.
It's common for women in perimenopause have unpredictable, very bloody periods. I'd heard (secondhand) accounts of sufferers have to wash out bloodied clothing.
We don't want mixed sex toilets.
This isn't about men's or womens toilets. It's about proving facilities for all the mixed/in between/quasi gender/gender fluid folks without having to segregate them.
We don’t want mixed sex toilets.
Don’t use them. There are other people in the world that they are life changing for.
We don’t want mixed sex toilets.
Don’t use them. There are other people in the world that they are life changing for.
But, as we've seen, for many women and girls the choice is being removed.
Which is a big mistake… there’s the nuance… keep women only facilities and introduce gender neutral ones. As Manchester Uni have. It works.
Aye, but my point is that when we can't restrict men who self-id as women from using the womens toilets then we are back to square one. Organisations are neatly side-stepping this issue by making all toilets mixed gender.
Having some toilet facilities that everyone can use, without having to satisfy anyone else about who and what they are, is indeed a big bonus for organisations of all sizes, as well as for many individuals.
But it’s arguably self defeating if organisations decide to get rid of woman only toilets completely… you can understand the pressure they’re under to do so, but they should resist. Again, see Manchester University, and how their approach has been received positively by most of its stakeholders.
Don’t use them. There are other people in the world that they are life changing for.
So when single-sex toilets are replaced with mixed-sex only facilities, women who don't feel comfortable with them should stay at home?
see Manchester University, and how their approach has been received positively by most of its stakeholders.
What about the users? It's daft not to have toilets that conform to the expectations of the users. Ideally the toilets everywhere would be like toilets in Stuttgart, but that would require everybody everywhere to treat toilets like the people in Stuttgart do.
The users (be that students or visitors) are the most important stakeholders, yes @edukator.
So when single-sex toilets are replaced with mixed-sex only facilities, women who don’t feel comfortable with them should stay at home?
In my posts, I’ve made it clear that women only toilets should be kept, and anywhere doing away with them are making a mistake. Replacing men only toilets, or building additional facilities, to create gender neutral toilets should be welcomed, for all the reasons already touched on in this thread.
Cougar
As luck would have it there was a poll on Talk Radio today: Do you support the introduction of gender neutral toilets?
Result - 89% No 11% yes (3613 votes)
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1180132186302947329
Yes it's just a radio show, yes it's a self selecting group, yes it's both sexes rather than only women, but that seems pretty good evidence that mixed sex toilets are not popular.
Kelvin
Adding mixed sex toilets is fine I guess, if as you say there are also single sex facilities. This doesn't seem to be happening in many places (Barbican, Old Vic, BBC, some schools, etc).
You've mentioned a few times that mixed sex loos at Manchester University work well. Is that your personal impression or have their been satisfaction surveys or something similar?
There's an article on the toilet issue in today's Sunday Times (written by Caroline Criado Perez).
The share token will expire so - if your're interested - read it sooner rather than later
talkradio
😬
Broad sample of their demographic in the comments:
STW forum chat is out of touch with the Will Of The People. That’s why we’re in this mess. You elitist nonces trying to normalise perverts. Sigh. I wish I didn’t find Julia Huntalot Brewer so appallingly semi-attractive in a masochistic yet totally hetero ‘is she isn’t he?’ kind of way.
/endkip
There’s an article on the toilet issue in today’s Sunday Times (written by Caroline Criado Perez).
Slight off-topic diversion - I recommend her book Invisible Women mentioned in the article. I'm sure many of you are more clued in than me but I hadn't a clue that data bias ran so deep or affected women so adversely.
I can also recommend 'Invisible Woman'. I thought I knew something about this stuff but was surprised at a lot of what I read. It's well written and researched as well.
Malvern Rider
Told Radio - yeah, sorry about that. I could find a lot of articles saying that women didn't like mixed sex loos, but that was one of the few recent polls. There's one in the ST article as well, currently running at 93% no (although the question is "Should ALL toilets be gender neutral?").
If we need mixed sex toilets leave the women's alone and change the men's.
^ No apologies required, I got to listen again to that husky-throated S/He-Wolf Of The Waffling SS. That gold-detailed-bathroom-closet-lesbian-trapped-in-a-middleagedmanbody’s rightwing reactionary version of Mariella Frostrup. (klaxxon sound, woof, woof, arooga arooga)
Ahem. Time to go and ride.
a) This is exactly what is happening
In which case, I share your indignation. As others have said, having only gender-neutral toilets is a mistake.
If you have women only toilets then you must have men only toilets – equality doesn’t run in just one direction.
"Equality" doesn't mean doing the same for everyone, especially when needs are different between demographics, it's doing what is fair. Should there be sanitary towel bins in the gents?
Aye, but my point is that when we can’t restrict men who self-id as women from using the womens toilets then we are back to square one.
You do realise, don't you, that this isn't as simple as a hairy-arsed bloke waking up one morning and thinking "I think I'll be a woman today"?
As luck would have it there was a poll on Talk Radio today: Do you support the introduction of gender neutral toilets?
Result – 89% No 11% yes (3613 votes)
There's any number of problems with that poll as you say, but regardless, populism doesn't equate to something being the correct thing to do.
I wonder idly whether if such a poll had existed back in the days of racial segregation, what the result would be for the introduction of mixed-race toilets? Or for the provision of more disability access, extra reserved parking spaces and spending loads of taxpayer money on wheelchair ramps say?
There’s one in the ST article as well, currently running at 93% no (although the question is “Should ALL toilets be gender neutral?”).
Yeah, I'm all in favour of mixed facilities, but I'd have voted 'no' in that poll also.
Count me in that 93%.
Well, apart from where there is room for only one set of toilet facilities, like a tiny cafe, where there’s only really the option for a gender neutral toilet… but that’s nothing new.
Yeah. We've actually had gender-neutral toilets for decades and no-one has complained. They can be identified by a little wheelchair symbol on the door.
Single-person/non-shared toilet and washing facilities? Has anyone suggested that those aren't acceptable?
We don’t want mixed sex toilets.
Don't presume to speak for all users.
On the issue of cramming families into a toilet I agree that's problematic. I have seen a few larger cubicles around that would address that, about the size of a disabled toilet but without the additional mobility equipment. I don't think it would be unreasonable to include a sink in there which would go some way to addressing a your other hygiene points (and rinsing moon cups and the like).
I think your problem is mixed use facilities with no thought given to provision for the needs of women rather than the concept as a whole (from a practical perspective rather than presumption). If the concerns you raise were addressed would you still be against them?
I think your problem is mixed use facilities with no thought given to provision for the needs of women rather than the concept as a whole (from a practical perspective rather than presumption). If the concerns you raise were addressed would you still be against them?
I'm not against the existence of mixed-sex facilities. I am against replacing women's toilets with mixed-sex facilities.
Women (who are aware) are complaining, loudly. Their concerns are being dismissed.
Copy/paste from Mail on Sunday (don't hold your breath waiting for The Guardian to report on this issue).
Gender-neutral toilets in schools have left girls feeling unsafe and even put their health at risk, parents and teachers have warned.
Girls who are menstruating are so anxious about sharing facilities with boys that some are staying at home for fear of being made to feel 'period shame'.
With a growing number of both primary and secondary schools installing unisex toilets, some girls are risking infections by refusing to urinate all day.
Others are so fearful they have stopped drinking liquids at school.
Parents and teaching staff have told The Mail on Sunday that female pupils feel deeply uncomfortable or even unsafe sharing toilets with male students.The trend for single-sex toilets is driven by the wish to be more inclusive of children who identify as transgender and wish to use the same facilities as the opposite sex.
But last night, doctors and politicians called on schools to halt the move towards unisex toilets to prevent any further harm to female pupils.
GP Tessa Katz said holding in urine for prolonged periods on a regular basis could increase the risk of girls suffering urinary and bladder infections.
'The psychological effects of girls not feeling safe enough to use mixed-sex toilets is also concerning,' Dr Katz said.At the same time, the rise in gender-neutral toilets has sparked a backlash among parents, many of whom say they were not consulted before the change was made at their children's schools.
The latest row involves Deanesfield Primary School in South Ruislip, West London, where parents launched a petition last month against the introduction of unisex toilets.
One angry mother, who has daughters aged four and eight at the school, said: 'The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over.'Stephanie Davies-Arai, from the parent campaign group Transgender Trend, said schools were being misinformed by 'trans activist' organisations that they were breaking equality laws if they did not make toilets unisex.
She said there were clear exemptions under the current equality laws that meant it was perfectly legal to have single-sex toilets.
A spokesman for Deanesfield said: 'We will continue to support parents with any individual worries or concerns they have.'
Tory MP David Davies, who has backed feminist claims that transgender rights are overriding those of women, said: 'If girls are not comfortable sharing toilets with boys then schools should make provision for them, rather than saying girls have got a problem.'
Single-occupancy unisex bathrooms with both toilet and washbasin - with adequate room for young children are the solution.
Have toilets built with good active ventilation and a decent degree of sound deadening. Make them open onto open, well-trafficked public areas so safety is not a concern.
Everyone can then use a toilet with appropriate privacy and importantly, safety. It works pretty well for accessible toilets.
Single-occupancy unisex bathrooms with both toilet and washbasin – with adequate room for young children are the solution
Aside from cleanliness/hygiene issues, these take up more space. This means less toilets for everyone.
Women have been campaigning for years to have their toilet provision increased.
Aside from cleanliness/hygiene issues, these take up more space. This means less toilets for everyone.
If that’s what making all people feel safe and comfortable - it’s worthwhile.
Are you really saying you value speed of toilet use over peoples feelings of inclusion and safety...?
If that’s what making all people feel safe and comfortable – it’s worthwhile.
Are you really saying you value speed of toilet use over peoples feelings of inclusion and safety…?
Are you saying you place the needs of a tiny minority over that of half the population?
Whose safety are you talking about here, who are they at risk from?
Name it and lets tackle that problem.
Small extract from an article posted on Women's Place UK. Note the author is anonymous, ask yourself why?
"Therefore, women always queue for the loo, because of unequal provision. Women also take longer to use the toilet for biological reasons.
Women have more reasons to use the toilet than men, including menstruation, menopause, pregnancy, incontinence, and caring for babies, small children and elderly relatives.
Yet no government has accepted that this is a gross infringement of human rights and equalities legislation; more likely women are blamed for ‘taking too long’ or their plight is seen as a joke."
https://womansplaceuk.org/gender-neutral-toilets-dont-work-for-women-2/
Kelvin - you've maybe had more use out of them than me but the Manc Uni gender neutral toilets were a stinking cesspit on the 2 occasions that I've used them after gigs. I would not have wanted to use them if I were female (piss all over seats and floor reasons).
They may work well during the day with less pissed people (men mainly) around?
women always queue for the loo, because of unequal provision.
... which is a definite and very common problem. Maybe less so in "normal" situations like at work or town centre WCs, but certainly when there's higher demand like during intervals at concerts. You see queues at the gents then also, but nothing like the frequency or severity of the ladies. Half the time in nightclubs (IME) there's more women than men in the gents.
They may work well during the day with less pissed people (men mainly) around?
Anecdotally, I'd say so. They were immaculate when I used them.
Why are you against unisex facilities?
Assuming all the issues I addressed were sorted I'm not seeing the problem.
Apparently, pupils at a city centre school in Edinburgh have re-segregated the toilets as none of the pupils liked them.
Edit: I've no idea whether some Greta Thuneberg style sit-down protest was involved.
Are you saying you place the needs of a tiny minority over that of half the population?
No. I’m saying that all people can feel comfortable using a safe, single occupancy facility.
Whose safety are you talking about here, who are they at risk from?
Considering you have described in the same response as a ‘tiny majority’ - surely you know who you are describing...?
Name it and lets tackle that problem.
I am talking about anyone who may feel uncomfortable or unsafe under the current male/female arrangements. It could be people who are trans, maybe homosexual men - several I know who have been physically assaulted in toilets. Typically these people have been assaulted by men.
My suggestion would allow more flexible use of facilities - which addresses some of the very real issues women face (That you raise and I agree with), provides increased safety for a greater range of vulnerable people including women and is also more inclusive. I’m really not sure why you would have an issue with that.
Equality is about making things fair not about protecting one group in society over another. You suggest clearly that the rights of women are more important than a “tiny minority”. That’s not actually true. We can with thought and effort look after everyone’s needs.
“Therefore, women always queue for the loo, because of unequal provision.
This makes sense. It can't be beyond our capabilities to model this behaviour and calculate what mix of toilets are required. Of course, as society changes that mix may well need to develop (for instance, more male facilities on some production lines, more female facilities at sports grounds). Gender neutral spaces should play a (big) part in resolving this, but only if they do not feature mixed-gender lobbies/sinks etc.
You suggest clearly that the rights of women are more important than a “tiny minority”. That’s not actually true. We can with thought and effort look after everyone’s needs.
Yeah, the rights a large group shouldn't over-ride the rights of a smaller one, but we need to be careful about what we consider to be "rights" and also make sure we aren't going too far in the other direction and infringing on the rights of the large group either
Can anyone describe the layout of the toilets at Manchester Uni that has been mentioned? Is it enclosed cubicles with shared sink areas or cubicles with their own sinks?
We can with thought and effort look after everyone’s needs
Either way, how can anyone view this as acceptable for women to put up with?
the Manc Uni gender neutral toilets were a stinking cesspit on the 2 occasions that I’ve used them after gigs. I would not have wanted to use them if I were female (piss all over seats and floor reasons).
Why would you think it is acceptable for blokes to stand in someone else's piss? I wouldn't want to use them either maybe the answer to it all is to have some attendants
Either way, how can anyone view this as acceptable for women to put up with?
Are you suggesting that it's OK for men to put up with it?
Why would you think it is acceptable for blokes to stand in someone else’s piss? I wouldn’t want to use them either maybe the answer to it all is to have some attendants
Nicely missing the point.
This is a negative (and disgusting) impact brought about by removing single-sex toilets.
Standing in piss is also very different to having to sit on a piss covered seat so I'd hope you recognise this is worse for women.
Men also have to sit on seats. The experience really is little different. There are many arguments against multi-gender toilets but this really isn't one of them.
Either way, how can anyone view this as acceptable for women to put up with?
It’s not acceptable for anyone to put up with. It’s also not been the case in the two recent workplaces I’ve worked in which had single bathroom facilities as I described. They were tidy and seemed better treated by users than more traditional toilet arrangements.
Men also have to sit on seats. The experience really is little different. There are many arguments against multi-gender toilets but this really isn’t one of them.
I think you'll find this pretty high up the list on women complaints about shared facilities.
Rainper. you clearly have an axe to grind. Have you joined this forum simply to comment on this thread? You don’t seem to have posted on any others, so I’m a little curious...
It’s not acceptable for anyone to put up with. It’s also not been the case in the two recent workplaces I’ve worked in which had single bathroom facilities as I described. They were tidy and seemed better treated by users than more traditional toilet arrangements.
The quoted section was about the state of shared facilities in bar in the evening.
Tis all in the pseudo.
Rainper. you clearly have an axe to grind. Have you joined this forum simply to comment on this thread? You don’t seem to have posted on any others, so I’m a little curious…
How exactly is recognising that the removal of existing single-sex toilets has many negative impacts on women an axe to grind?
It’s not acceptable for anyone to put up with.
+1.
I think that there are several factors that influence whether it makes sense or not to have mixed sex loos, of which scale and whether or nor alcohol consumption is involved are two important elements (but not the only ones). We go to a cafe with the kids* at the weekend that is small scale, doesn't sell alcohol and has to loos that are used interchangeably by anyone as and when they are free. Makes sense. In a scenario where there are many people and alcohol is involved, it would be sensible to have some single sex provision. Generally though my wife and I both have no issues with mixed provision. Her take (sample size of one) - if someone is going to upskirt, they'll do it anyway, just find a different outlet.
* and btw using the mens loos with the cubicle door open with the kids has never been a problem.
Recognising the needs of women isn’t the issue. Joining a forum simply to comment on one thread and one aspect is.
Men also have to sit on seats. The experience really is little different. There are many arguments against multi-gender toilets but this really isn’t one of them.
I think you’ll find this pretty high up the list on women complaints about shared facilities.
I think you'll find that's also high up the list of mens complaints about toilets too. That isn't an argument for single-sex toilets though.
There is a British Standard for WC provision (BS6465-1). To put into perspective I have a project where I have 18 female WC and 6 male WC / 6 urinals (plus 3 DWCs). This is based on a 50/50 occupancy split. The male from memory is oversized as extra urinals were requested (although should have been provided).
The provision for female WCs is always greater, and the difference varies depending on the type of venue.
I also have a project that has unisex single WCs. Not my first choice but separate sex WCs would have required a greater provision, taken up more space and required ambulant provision under the standards.
We don’t want mixed sex toilets.
And I pointed this out early, about mens poor hygene.
keep women only facilities and introduce gender neutral ones
and keep men-only facilities then - I object to gender favouritism.
What if men don't feel comfortable in gender-neutral tiolets - why do they have to 'suck it up' but women don't.
“Equality” doesn’t mean doing the same for everyone, especially when needs are different between demographics, it’s doing what is fair. Should there be sanitary towel bins in the gents?
It does mean doing the same thing - the clue is in the letters "equal" which appear in "equality" but don't appear in "fair". And fair in whose opinion ?
You do realise, don’t you, that this isn’t as simple as a hairy-arsed bloke waking up one morning and thinking “I think I’ll be a woman today”?
except that this does happen :
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/male-prisoners-self-identifying-as-trans-for-perks/
Some women don't even feel comfortable in women-only toilets - surely anyone with a partner has witnessed occasions where they have arrived home 'bursting' because they didn't want to use any public toilets that they felt weren't clean enough, but were actually of a reasonable standard?
I also have a project that has unisex single WCs
Sounds like you have a great job...
and keep men-only facilities then – I object to gender favouritism.
It does mean doing the same thing – the clue is in the letters “equal” which appear in “equality” but don’t appear in “fair” And fair in whose opinion ?
Why do only women have gynaecologists? Where are all the men's gynae?
The problem with this line of thinking is it starts from the assumption that you already have parity. In which case, you're right, of course equality does mean doing the same thing. But if you don't then you have to treat demographics differently in order to try and achieve equality.
If you have two kids and a bag of sweets, giving them half each is equal. But if one of them already has a bag of sweets, in the interests of "equality" do you still give them half each of yours or do you instead give your bag to the kid who doesn't have any? The former may be equal, but it's not fair. You're not treating them with equality because equality wan't there to start with. [EDIT: assuming kid #2 hasn't already troughed their own bag earlier, OFC]
In the case of toilets, and it saddens me to have to even type this, male and female usage and requirements are different. Simply going for a wee (generally) takes longer for women so achieving the same, uh, throughput of customers requires larger facilities. That's before we've even started taking into consideration things like messy periods. Eg, I can't imagine that many women would want to swill out a mooncup in a mixed-gender shared area, yet this is a problem which simply doesn't exist for men, and thus why your concept of "equality" is broken.
except that this does happen :
I'm sure that's entirely representative of society as a whole.
(I've edited that link, it was causing an annoying pop-up.)
That Christian Institute link is popping up a sign-in box.
Edit. Ah, you spotted it.
Why do only women have gynaecologists? Where are all the men’s gynae?
I'll give you a clue 😉
"The word "gynaecology" comes from the oblique stem (γυναικ-) of Greek γυνή (gyne), "woman", and -logia, "study". "
Men do have urologists, though. I'm not sure if self-identification counts for gynaecological study. What they don't have are "andrologists".
I always sit down to wee. Nobody goes to a work toilet without 70% charge on their phone these days anyway.
You do realise that wasn't an entirely serious question? (-:
rainper
This is a negative (and disgusting) impact brought about by removing single-sex toilets.
Standing in piss is also very different to having to sit on a piss covered seat so I’d hope you recognise this is worse for women.
You're assuming men caused that problem? Look up hovering.
You’re assuming men caused that problem? Look up hovering.
That's as may be but I suspect it's a rather safe bet that the majority of it is men.
Simply going for a wee (generally) takes longer for women
not with my partner - I wish I had her flow rate...
There still needs to be men-only toilets - for one thing women aren't going to enjoy having George Michael wannabes hanging around their toilets late at night...
You’re assuming men caused that problem? Look up hovering.
[lighthearted]Are you actually mansplaining (or did you just not notice my earlier post when I said I am a woman)?[/lighthearted]
More often than not, if there's a bit of wee on the seat in the ladies, it's because there is no toilet paper. This (the running out of paper) seems to be inevitable in bars/clubs at the end of the night, but it's all too common earlier in the evening, including in venues that serve food.