Gender Neutral Toilets: Pret A Manger

davidmcn

unforeseen wrote: »

I don't agree with the 'barking' but agree with the staff that disabled toilets are for those that meet the criteria (for want of a better word) to use them

Leaving the unisex toilet arguments aside - given how many relevant disabilities are invisible, I don't think the staff should really be policing who they think qualifies to use the disabled toilets (or they might risk the customer deciding to start a loud and detailed discussion about e.g. colostomy bags).

fewgroats

Don't men sometimes use women's toilets anyway? What happens if the gents is out of order?

Manxman_in_exile

fewgroats wrote: »

Don't men sometimes use women's toilets anyway? What happens if the gents is out of order?

Is the sink in the gents blocked then?

Manxman_in_exile

I used to be a manager in the NHS. A few years ago my department had an away-day at an ambulance station.


All the women in our group refused to use the ladies because, apparently, it was so appalling. They were happy to use the gents. But not at the same time we did.

unforeseen

davidmcn wrote: »

Leaving the unisex toilet arguments aside - given how many relevant disabilities are invisible, I don't think the staff should really be policing who they think qualifies to use the disabled toilets (or they might risk the customer deciding to start a loud and detailed discussion about e.g. colostomy bags).

However the lady appears to have made it clear that rather than having a hidden disability she wanted to use it because l she was uncomfortable using a unisex toilet.

I have an invisible disability and never had any problems explaining why I am using it without resorting to detailed discussions about my disability.

JReacher1

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I know many women who are uncomfortable with the sort of "unisex" toilet facilities that I presume the OP is describing. (I don't think they mean single cubicle toilets as in planes, trains and homes).


I can understand why some women don't like them, but as a bloke I'm not bothered.

If the OP was describing a bar I would imagine they were talking about a row of cubicles with a central hand washing point.

This is a Pret though and I have been to many of them and the toilets are not big. It will be at most two individual cubicles.

JReacher1

davidmcn wrote: »

Leaving the unisex toilet arguments aside - given how many relevant disabilities are invisible, I don't think the staff should really be policing who they think qualifies to use the disabled toilets (or they might risk the customer deciding to start a loud and detailed discussion about e.g. colostomy bags).

It sounds like the OP made it quite clear to the member of staff why they wanted to use the disabled toilet.

I think if the OP had just asked to use the disabled toilet the key would have been provided as staff in large companies like Pret tend to be trained not to ask any personal questions.

Manxman_in_exile

On my train route to London all the first class toilets are disabled facilities, but they're used by everybody. Shouldn't they be?


(Oh - I should add to my previous post that the ambulance station was a private one and not NHS - where I'm sure the ladies would have been pristine. God knows why we were giving money to the private sector.)

LilElvis

Why didn't you just accompany her to the toilets?

Aylesbury_Duck

OP, in my view the problem does test with the two of you and yes, I suggest you get on board the “diversity train” which in this case, is more of a “rational sense” train. The things that make her and some others nervous about using unisex toilets aren’t likely to be prevented by segregated toilets.

In this instance, a rational assessment of the situation and your reaction to it will probably result in your friend realising she was unnecessarily concerned.