Gender neutral toilets in todays news!

Yes. To the naked eye, cats may seem to have a lot of time on their hands/paws, but they don’t waste it fretting over whether or not they should spray their territory, and if they should protect their kittens against all comers. If they feel like doing something they just do it.

They don’t get upset about whether they are called Fifi (she/her) or Fang (he/him) either, despite their massive egos.

Do cats know if they are male or female?

whether he is a student or not is just a distraction 😂

Well, JaneJudge, is he/she a student???

I think the question to this diversion is, if my cat identifies as female can he use the toilet or does he have to time travel to 1971 and get involved in a cats can be female too student demo

Have you read the thread, Rowantree?

This is one of the ways that diversions happen.

Mollygo no, don't think I'm using my 1971 experience to justify anything. Simply amused that it's nothing new.
The alleged cat issue isn't fact anyway. It was dreamed up by a tabloid.

Rowantree
Are you saying that your 1971 experience justifies the introduction of gender neutral toilets, which facilitated the sexual assault by the 16 year old male in the OP.
I have never been faced with an obviously male or TW (appearance or behaviour) in washrooms in France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland or Portugal. I could extrapolate from that, that TW in Europe are better behaved than those in examples we have seen in the UK.

Don’t go into the cat discussion. A poster has criticised other posters for deviating from the OP.

Something further has occurred to me.
If there are pupils at school identifying as cats, aren't schools duty-bound to provide litter trays?

Calistemon I've done just that many times. Long queues at women's toilets and none in men's. So I do sometimes use them.

I remember the good old days of 1971.
I had joined in a student demonstration and we were 'sitting in' one of the London colleges overnight.
(Don't ask me what it was about - I've long since forgotten!)
Anyway, when I went to the loo, the Ladies /Gents signs had been crossed out and someone had stuck on pieces of paper stating simply: 'People's Bog.'
No one batted an eyelid, as far as I knew.

NotSpaghetti it was very naughty of you to introduce the tik-tok recording on this thread and lead the rest of us astray. Consider yourself chastised.
I freely admit to being led astray! Mea culpa! Mea culpa

Twas ever this Molly and Doodledog.

On a separate point it’s really funny to see deviations from the OP from posters who complain about others doing that.
Double standards agogo, but what's new?

I saw a post on FB by a man who was upset to find that, at a recent public event, women were "queuing up to use the men's toilets!" 😯
There were even longer queues for the ladies' loos but he was quite put out by this.

Doodledog
If the answer is that it is not safe for those who are not 'male identifying' men to be around men when they are vulnerable, why are women expected to do so now?

This is the best reason I’ve seen for a long time to explain to everyone, even to the most ardent IF, why there’s a need for single sex toilets or separate gender neutral toilets or *colonisation of men’s toilets to accommodate TW.*

On a separate point it’s really funny to see deviations from the OP from posters who complain about others doing that.

And will probably have to keep doing this over and over until there's some common sense Doodledog.

We've done this over and over.

Additional provision is fine, but I don't see how that can be compulsory other than in new buildings. There will be very many premises who don't have the space or plumbing to offer three lots of facilities (plus, potentially, disabled and baby-changing provision).

I have no objection to extra provision where it is logistically possible (but I do object to the opt-out being to colonise the existing Ladies'), but am confused about who would use what.

If (as I believe would be the case), the vast majority of women prefer the pleasanter smell and the safety of a traditional Ladies', and the only people 'presenting as' women who use the GN ones are trans, why can't they use the Gents' in the first place, as they will stand out by going into the GN ones.

If the answer is that it is not safe for those who are not 'male identifying' men to be around men when they are vulnerable, why are women expected to do so now?

There is also the issue of transmen using facilities with male-bodied men who know that the transmen are female-bodied. Will that not put them at risk, too?

In schools, where the sexes are developing differently and both are coming to terms with puberty and sexuality, there is (to me) no good reason why girls should have to deal with periods in front of boys, or boys should have to wee in front of giggling girls. Even single-sex facilities (showers as well as loos) can be embarrassing at that age.

Yes, in addition to the provision of toilets for women and men.

Well at the risk of cross threads I recently travelled on a train and a plane- no single sex toilets, just one cubicle, with a wash basin opening into a public area, found the same in several cafes. Most women seem to use them. So perhaps that's what we need everywhere

Who are not as easily led down rabbit holes.
Having wasted so much time on here being diverted, I'm learning not to be led down them, too .

So, about the single-sex toilets. . . .

Lathyrus

Well mist teachers would ask for a statement from both parties only if something serious had occurred.

But this teacher has escalated whatever happened into name calling, (despicable), criticism of parents (sad) twisting and putting words that were never said into her pupils mouths (asylums), threatening (going to report you) and finally threat of expulsion.

Does anyone think she’s capable of a rational judge of what is a serious incident?

Well one person is already writing a statement and she tells the girls they "may be asked to do so".
Usually the second statement (from the person who is named in the first) will not happen until the incident is investigated.
She won't be the judge.
Such incidents are usually investigated by senior staff. Who are not as easily led down rabbit holes.

Well mist teachers would ask for a statement from both parties only if something serious had occurred.

But this teacher has escalated whatever happened into name calling, (despicable), criticism of parents (sad) twisting and putting words that were never said into her pupils mouths (asylums), threatening (going to report you) and finally threat of expulsion.

Does anyone think she’s capable of a rational judge of what is a serious incident?

Doodledog

Are you 'hounding' me or 'demanding' answers to every single part of your posts, Glorianny?

I can't answer questions about something you have invented (ie the 'something nasty' you allege to have happened), without diverting the thread away from what we do know, which is that the teacher tried to suppress the girls' opinions, and that she was rude and threatening to them.

No such thing Doodledog but as you are so interested in analysing and unpicking my posts I just wondered why you had to ignore the "they are writing a statement" which is plainly said on the recording. Especially since you are alleging my scenario is completely invented. I now confidently expect you to say "I've no idea why "they"are writing a statement" so let's put it like this. Teachers do not routinely require anyone to write a statement unless an incident has occurred which contravenes school rules, and which could require further investigation and disciplinary action from more senior staff. So something happened.

Totally agree Dorain and Musicgirl