The gents remained unchanged
Why do they keep doing this?
This makes NO sense. Women are the ones subject to sexual violence and harassment and creeping (you know, cameras, peering over the partition, that stuff), not men. Women; not men. It shouldn’t be men who are given the toilets to themselves while women have to share them with men; that is backwards.
Plus the whole…”well we don’t want to push men around because they might punch us, so we’ll just dump it all on you, because if you punch us we can smash all your teeth in.” It’s called bullying; it’s called unfair; it’s called taking advantage.
I can think of one reason why the gents may have remained unchanged – Urinals.
That is not, however, to excuse the forcing of woman to “share” with everyone; this is not an accommodation just for men wearing woman face, it is permission for all men to invade womens’ space.
And it is wrong.
I’d report them to the local authority as they may be in breach of environmental health regulations, and to the licensing authorities as they may be in breach of the Equality Act.
Why would Covid regulations force someone to change their women’s toilets to unisex? Sounds weird, has anybody checked?
BG:
Some bloke might object to having to share the same dunny as a bloke dressed up as a woman. With possible consequences. Best play it safe.
I was a student at a boys-only school in the 1950s, which had only one solidly-built male toilet, complete with stand-in-line-side-by-side urinal plus cubicles. Once a year, there was a festive Open Day, and that blockhouse dunny was given over for the use of visiting females, with us males being invited to use faciilities an old tin shed, or else the shrubbery.
In deference to the sensibilities of the ladies having no alternative to the said dunny, a heavy truck tarpaulin was used to screen off the urinal. Out of sight, out of mind. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Ignorance is bliss. Stuff like that.
Maybe if they labeled the men’s facilities unisex instead, that would satisfy everyone, women’s remain women’s only, and the transwhatevers won’t be offended by having to use the men’s room with all the embarrassment, shame, literal violence, wailing, and gnashing of teeth it involves. We don’t want the poor bastards in the men’s room hiking up their skirts to use the urinals, but if it says it’s a unisex bathroom then it’s okay. Such an easy solution. You could even label one of the urinals women only, or use the urinal’s preferred pronouns, then the hiking up of the skirt to piss could be a wonderful experience for them. Could be a smart business move too, they would want to drink more ale so they could visit the wonderful unisex potty more often.
Or perhaps the covid regulations have reduced the capacity of the urinal since you can’t stand shoulder-to-shoulder and socially distance. Yeah, there’s nothing forcing him to switch the ladies to unisex but not the gents; but in practical terms most of his customers are probably men and cubicles have a door and thus some privacy while urinals don’t.
I’d be aff up the incline by now, me lover, we don’t get many what you’d call ladies in ere, mind
Is this real? The post says ‘no ladies toilets in Bristol.’ What, all of it?
Also, these signs are just a couple of sheets of paper taped to the tiles. Anyone could do that.
Would be good to name the Pub. ‘The pub manager’ refered to in the post doesn’t mean anything.
Well it’s a tweet, not a charge sheet or a newspaper article. Verification standards not quite the same.
I read it as this happening in Bristol, and it was a place with no ladies toilets, but they could have meant it the other way, as irony maybe. I always assume tweets have convoluted ways of saying things, so I try to read them as if they make sense. That doesn’t work with a lot of them, and just makes my head hurt. Which is one reason I’m not on Twitter.