Experience in the Loo

[Stu]

Alternate point of view - - - -

A father(divorced?) and young daughter are on an outing together, having a good time. The father needs to utilize facilities to relieve 'mother nature'.
For his child's safety, he takes her into said facilities, to prevent a kidnapping. Now - what is more important - - your perceived self importance of being subjected to a 'female' in the men's room, or, the safety of a small child

In the specific context, that really wouldn't wash. This is a very popular country park with an outside cafe with tables and people having coffee etc a few paces away. The idea that a child could simply be grabbed and forcibly take from there and carried to the car park about 300 metres away with her no doubt screaming is simply unrealistic. He could have stood her at the entrance to the Ladies where women were queuing. I think people have become massively and unnecessarily risk averse in this regard. When I was 10 years old, I used to cycle to this very park - about 25 miles from where I then lived - and sometimes alone.

As I said, aged 3 or 4 is one thing, but 9 or 10? We have to draw the line somewhere.

[crfriend]

As I said, aged 3 or 4 is one thing, but 9 or 10? We have to draw the line somewhere.

Indeed, and that's where the focus should be -- on what's reasonable and likely to be accepted by all (preferably) or at least most.

As far as the hypothetical "situation" above; that was pure hyperbole and deliberately crafted to instil fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) in the mind of the reader to get him to accept the extreme viewpoint of the author. It's a common tool in command/control environments with an ill-defined (or undefined) hierarchy (other than The Leader). Don't fall for it; it's a control tactic. Children -- especially smart ones -- can be very, very good at extricating themselves from problems; they just need to keep their wits about them longer than an assailant. Needless to say, these sorts of incidents are vanishingly rare which is why they get so much ink spilled about them in the rare instances where they do arise.

[Modoc]

I don't know what the men's room layout was, but in the past few years, I've noticed large, non-gendered restrooms in the US. Not a lot for sure. They have closed-door stalls, but the rest of the facility is open, and people of both sexes share the common area, and of course, children. I once went in to use one that was empty, but when I came out of the stall, several women and children were at he sinks. My heart immediately started pounding; I probably thought for just a second that I had gone into the wrong room. About that time, another adult male emerged from a stall and confidently went to the sinks to wash, and nobody batted an eye.
On reflection, the area was basically a big washroom, with private toilets lining the walls. I was in a couple of others after that and still felt just a bit uncomfortable.

[Uncle Al]

My "comment" of providing an "alternate view" for what happened,
was to get people to think. Stu's post is a one-sided post. He didn't
know the WHY behind what happened, only that 'it happened'.

Did he stop and ask the father why By his post, he didn't ask anyone.
He presumed he knew all the facts behind the action. This only causes
problems later on.

Uncle Al

[Ray]

I note a comparison in an earlier post about a 9 year old girl being in the gents vs an 8 year old boy being in a female showering facility.

I find the apparent attempt to provide equivalence highly amusing.

One room has men with their backs to the child, showing very little of their bodies even if the child were to peer round from behind them (which the parent presumably would prevent).

The other is a room full of naked people taking showers, or in the act of putting on or removing a towel, showing large tracts of their body, if not the full Monty.

To a rational person, presented with such facts, they would find it hard to equate the two.

I do not see them as the same. I do see boys in womens’ showers and girls in mens’ showers being broadly the same.

[Stu]

Did he stop and ask the father why By his post, he didn't ask anyone.
He presumed he knew all the facts behind the action. This only causes
problems later on.

Uncle Al

As I said, I wasn't 100% sure the child was a girl. There was an outside chance the child was a boy wearing rather feminine-looking garments - as some boys do; I certainly didn't want to humiliate the child. So my objection was conditional - IF (!) this was a girl, then I found taking "her" into the men's room to be inconsiderate - but I couldn't be certain. So I was relating an event and not offering answers other than to call for more unisex toilets - and they would be a boon to trans people as well.

[Stu]

I do not see them as the same.

You are right, Ray, that they are not the same, but it's a matter of degree - and remembering that what would offend one person might not offend another. I knew of a case in a UK nightclub where women became sick of queuing for the Ladies and marched into them men's to use a stall. Some men couldn't care less, but many, me included, would find that extremely uncomfortable. This is why when I see a sign on toilets in a motorway services that says "MALE AND FEMALE CLEANERS MAY BE OPERATING IN THIS FACILITY", I always use a stall with the door closed.

We need some kind of consistency - a single set of unwritten rules that everyone knows and respects or, better still, properly designed unisex toilets.

[Ray]

That’s a sensible approach.

[crfriend]

That’s a sensible approach.

And that's what the world needs now. Desperately. "A sensible approach."

[Ray]

Carl, we can but hope.