sebastienne

I find it a great development; both for the reasons outlined by the green-haired lady in the BBC video (even though she's been edited to look a bit gormless), and simply because it means twice as many toilets! Especially useful in my new university, where toilets are scattered randomly around, and it's perfectly possible to find a "men's" with no "women's" anywhere in sight and that is pointless and frustrating.

I despair, a little bit, that such a great development is being cast by the BBC, and indeed by newly published books, in such a negative, "political correctness gone mad!!" kind of way. Even very good friends of mine have a knee-jerk "but it's against the natural order! think of the children!" reaction, simply because the concept is not something we're used to. But I think

a) "the natural order" involves trans and intersex people who do not fit a male/female binary, and I can't support a worldview that oppresses them

and
b) does it really matter how the person in the private, locked cubicle next door to yours identifies? If you don't want to see / be seen, don't use "toilets with urinals".

From:

woah, holy lecture, batman! sorry ^_^

From:

I have been used to the idea of unisex toilets ever since they did it in Ally McBeal. Perhaps we need to encourage the nay-sayers to watch that series?

I thought the article was fairly balanced. They quoted from both sides of the debate. And the political correctness statement was clearly in quotes, from a spokesperson for the campus newspaper. I didn't read a negative cast to the report just the BBC saying this is happening, this is what the people in favour of it think, this is what the people against it think.

And I'm glad its happening too. Shame it didn't occur to the organisers of that LBGT rally in London some months back...

From:

Did you watch the video?

Because it's pretty stonkingly transphobic. Describes trans women as "men who think they are women". This is wrong because it's "men (+description)" (implying trans women are "really men"), when it should be "women (+description)", eg, "Women who were assigned male at birth" or, god forbid, "women".

There's a sodding media code that lays out basic standards of respect for reporting about trans people. I've lost count of the number of times that it has been broken since I've been aware of the issues.

From:

I did not watch the video, no. I will when I get a chance.

From:

I have been used to the idea of unisex toilets ever since they did it in Ally McBeal.

Ah-ha, but they did it in Press Gang first!

From:

Well, Ally McBeal was always just a cheap American knock-off of Press Gang.

:O)

From:

*is inexplicably transported by a delightful mental image of Julia Sawahla battering Callista Flockhart in a cage match to the death*

From:

lil-shepherd.livejournal.com

My transgendered friends have always used the toilets that felt natural to them - and I have, occasionally, as a woman, used male loos myself when I had to. The French have mainly bi-sexual toilets anyway. It's the labelling I object to, and the reasons for it. If someone identifies as a woman, they use the Ladies. If they identify as a man, they use the Gents, and it they haven't got the equipment to use the urinals they use the cubicals. Few people feel uncomfortable with that, but a lot of women (and some men) are going to feel uncomfortable with this sort of labelling, and with the invitation to invade what they feel is a safe space.

From:

When I say "trans" above I'm not really talking about people who transition from being perceived as one gender to being perceived as the other (although unisex toilets would be helpful for them, too, especially in the early days of their transition, where they can be read as "wrong" in either gender, and this can lead to all kinds of confrontations in "single-sex" spaces. People who transition at work often get told to use the Disabled loos at times, for the "comfort" of others - yuk), I was more referring to people under the "transgender" umbrella who don't fit neatly into male/female boxes.

Sorry, I'm really not trying to be argumentative, I'm just slightly confused: what exactly do you think is wrong with the "toilets with urinals" / "toilets without urinals" labelling system, given that unisex toilets work well enough in other countries, eg France? I agree that it's not ideal to thrust these changes on people, but I tend to think of it like decimalisation of money, ie, it's got to happen sometime, so this generation may as well be the one to suck it up and deal with the newness.

From:

lil-shepherd.livejournal.com

Sorry I've taken so long getting back to this.

Firstly, the labelling. It may be fine in a college where everyone reads and writes English, but writing 'Toilets with urinals' is not going to work anywhere where there are foreign or illiterate people.
The international signage is currently quite clear to everyone, whether they can or cannot write English (or Arabic, come to that.)

Secondly, culture. I suspect that this won't go down too well in the Islamic countries, or if you have Islamic students. British culture also regards going to the loo as a private issue - and mixed loos the same way as it regards mixed sex medical wards in hospitals. It is becoming clear that this is highly unpopular.

Thirdly, it's obvious you haven't worked in an office or a factory for a long period (or, for that matter, watched Cagney and Lacey.) Women often use the loos as a place where they can safely retreat to have a good cry, bitch about men etc. Often, there is nowhere else. You are removing that safe space. Also, many men are horrified by the sight of women putting on mascara, for some reason, and they don't want women to see them cry, either.

From a financial point of view, this means twice as many sanitary disposal bins to be installed and cleaned. That's a high extra cost. Have you never had a bleed through and needed to wash an item of underwear or even a skirt? Would you like to do it with a man watching? Would a man like to watch you do it?

Even in places like France, with a different tradition, they are moving away from unisex loos, as the world becomes a more multicultural place.

I guess it comes down to who you want to offend the most!

From:

I honestly don't care who I share a toilet with, although it would be a bugger if men had to endure women-style queues, I guess I could learn to live with it :) The green haired girl, however, made me want to throttle her.

"Saying that political correctness has gone mad is itself not politically correct"

I couldn't take her seriously after that.

From:

Thing is, though, she's right. It's an unintentionally comical statement, sure, but she is essentially right. Using "mad" in that way is ableist, though I am aware that I do it all the time and really can't talk.

From:

it would be a bugger if men had to endure women-style queues

What that the gender with, on average, larger bladders and fewer problems with wetting themselves in middle age have to wait as long as the gender that has to use the toilet more frequently and with greater urgency.

Gosh, that really would be terrible.

From:

Now lets not get into a pissing match (haw haw, I'm here all week thank you very much).

I would love to meet you one day vampire_kitten .

From: (Anonymous)

Translation:

vampirekitten is right, and

dreamstothesky can't think of a comeback.

From:

What I meant was - it's a silly argument because I was not being serious in the first place. But yes, you can win this one.

But I was genuine about the sentiment though, I think you would be a fun debating partner. It's absolutely impossible to say this without sounding like a twat, but I'll say it anyway - I (really) do admire your feistiness.

Even though I think it is misguided. But makes for a colourful world, no?

From:

robot-mel.livejournal.com

Of course kids frequently use the "wrong" loos because of which parent they are with.

I think unisex loos are a great idea! One thing I will say in slimelights favour is that all their loos are that way. It makes queing so much less of an issue! In Seattle there was a law that said if the women's line was more than 5 people long women were allowed to go and use the men's loos. Though most women were too shy to do this because they were worried they might see a guy peeing!

From:

It takes a brave soul to head into the stinky world of man-loo.

That said, back in the day I used to get paid 3.75 an hour to clean toilets (amongst my other duties such as wiping tables and refillng straw holders) and the girls were always worse. Mind you, that was at McDonalds - possibly not an accurate cross section of society.

From:

robot-mel.livejournal.com

Lols! I guess it depends where you are... some loos are much scarier than others...

From:

liminereid.livejournal.com

No it doesn't! I used to go in blokes loss if there was no queue all the time when i was small. Kinda stopped past about 13 when it got connotations

From:

potatofiend.livejournal.com

I was foolish enough to read the online Daily Mail article about that particular development. I left irate comments. For the idiotic commenters. For crying out loud: GET OVER YOURSELVES. IT'S A TOILET. Most Oxford colleges just have random unisex toilets scattered around, as you would have in your home; I don't understand what the problem is.

From:

ophe1ia-in-red.livejournal.com

Unisex toilets ftw.

Although I sympathise with the girls who'd rather not go to the toilet in a bathroom that has boys in it, it's a taboo that needs breaking, and unfortunately it has to fall upon one generation or another to break it...

From:

It surprises me the complaint is that way round - I mean, girls go to the loo in completely enclosed cubicals, whereas men can pee in a area visable to area. I'd would have thought it would be the boys complaining that the girls might see their genitals.

From:

As mentioned by lil_shepard above, I think for some it may be a safety issue. It is wrong that anyone needs to live under any form of fear and be wary of certain situations but the reality of the world we live means such fears can be justified. Unisex toilets would mean an infrequently visited space (at least late at night), designed (unless built specifically for the purpose) to be unobserved from public spaces, where a vulnerable feeling woman may fear encountering abuse or attack. Removing the 'Ladies' removes a safe space (even if the safety is only perceived, not actual). I think this is why the objection is often from women as opposed to men.

I am still in favour of them but I do think thought on this issue is needed. If the loos are a single occupancy its not a problem. If its a larger loo with a number of cubicles and a sink area then such a thing as removing the outer doors can help, or perhaps installing cctv.

As for male objections to being seen peeing I do thing thought should be given to replacing the urinal with cubicles. The space requirement isn't that much greater and urinals are rarely used to maximun capacity anyway due to male reluctance to use one too close to another man anyway.

I read a number of years ago about a school which knocked the boys and girls loos into one large room with only cubicles. The sinks were placed as a double row in the centre. This had the effect of instantly stopping all the bullying and intimidation that used to happen all the time in the loos (mainly the boys but also the girls) due to the increased visibility of the common area and the fact that both boys and girls often change their behaviour when around the other sex, especially during puberty.

From:

Unisex toilets would mean an infrequently visited space (at least late at night), designed (unless built specifically for the purpose) to be unobserved from public spaces, where a vulnerable feeling woman may fear encountering abuse or attack.

Would this nessisarily be more dangerous with a unisex toilet over a female only toilet. If it is infrequently visited/unobservable what is to stop a man going in there anyway?

From:

This is what I meant when I said "even if the safety is only perceived, not actual".

You are entirely right. However, we must consider the possibility of 'opportunity'. With the increased likelihood of a man being legitimately allowed into the space comes an increase in the percieved and actual likelihood of problems.

Again I say I am in favour of them. I just understand why some women are nervous of the concept and I hope the people organising this do their best to lesson any legitimate concerns.

:O)

From:

When there was a debate over this at my undergrad uni, the issue was usually phrased in terms of hygiene, rather than safety. Unfortunately, that is something of a reality: men's toilets can and often do smell like horrible horrible death. However, I'm willing to bet that has something to do with the relative amounts of effort put into cleaning men's and women's toilets by cleaners, and in any case, I think smelly toilets are a much less serious problem than the oppression of transpeople.

From:

It can't be so much of a problem - I've worked in places with unisex toilets and most houses have unisex toilets without smelling ike horrible death etc.

I suspect it's a self-perpetuating cycle - once the men's toilets get icky, they have less incentive to aim/ clean up after themselves so it just gets worse...

From:

I think you're right about the self-perpetuating cycle. The problem does seem to be with public toilets that are used by lots of people, particularly in venues where alcohol is being consumed - but IME of working in restaurants and entertainment venues where there were bathrooms that needed cleaning, the male ones have generally been significantly worse.

From:

hildabeast.livejournal.com

i think its the urinals rather than the toilets that make the smell (as a former cleaner...)

From:

osymandias.livejournal.com

France at least has had generally unisex toilets for years; it's just not an issue. About time this country got over its ridiculous hangups about the things. That article was ridiculous, though, yes.

From:

mentalfirewall.livejournal.com

I made the mistake of reading about this in the Metro (yes i know... very silly of me) and it made me want to scream. Not that the lables are being changed - that sounds like a wonderfully positive idea - but with some of the quotes they had. I tried to find the exact quote online but failed, instead I found this comment which basically says the same thing

'Sorry, but I don't want to share the restroom with a guy, no matter which sex he identifies with. Equal rights means rights for me, too.'

This exemplifies the bigoted view prevalanet in society and it just makes me want to tell them how they're wrong in just so many ways!

From:

steerpikelet.livejournal.com

ARGH. http://pennyred.blogspot.com/2008/10/tories-in-queer-hypocrisy-shocker.html

From:

I hope you won't think I'm being patronising if I say that I think your writing has really improved, but well, I think your writing has really improved.

From:

Oh, that whacky, zany BBC and their hilarious transphobic coverage. I don't really have anything to add, except beyond that, but *damn* that is some epic media fail.

From:

Oh, wait, yes I do! Green-haired woman was totally in the right, but also totally gormless, and got thoroughly played by the evil idiot journalist. Any progressive who engages with someone who uses the phrase 'politically correct' on that other person's own terms is setting themselves up for trouble.

From:

subservient-son.livejournal.com

I don't have much to add, except that Baby Love on King Edward Street has a uni-sex toilet, and that's always worked fine.

From:

potatofiend.livejournal.com

Omg, are you ubiquitous? Did you go out yesterday with my friend Siobhan from OUP, by any chance? Conversation in pub last night:

Siobhan: "I met a librarian yesterday!"
Jack: "Did she turn to dust in the sun?"
S: "No. She was a goth though. Called Emma."
Me: *spits out drink* "Omg! Glasses? Big smile and great boobs?"
S: "Yes!"

Can there be two such boobular Gothy librarians in Oxford?

From: