• Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    5 days ago

    All of this is solved with just using more single occupancy bathrooms. Just an open hallway with rooms and toilets and changing stations. Sinks in the hallway.

    • SaraTonin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      Not allowed. I’ll copy from another post:

      No, there’s already rules in place from the previous government which says that all new builds and buildings euch are changing their use must have separate, sex-segregated toilets, unless the building is physically too small for anything other than a single room with a single toilet and sink. You can have gender-neutral toilets as well but not instead

      • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        So make the toilets as outlined above, but on the last two doors in the row mark one male and one female.

        • bthest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Yeah. The minority of loud stupid/paid people who care about this really are the ones who should be inconvenienced. If you want a gendered bathroom then there’s an outbuilding you can use. It’s on one plot so technically we’re still within code.

          • SaraTonin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            I’m far from an expert on this, but my understanding is that that could work, but it could also fall foul of other building regs, specifically the H&S regulations of 1992, which talk about toilets being suitable and sufficient

            In my inexpert opinion it’d be enough of a grey area that you could challenge it in court if you were told it wasn’t allowed. In practical terms, no company is likely to do this unless they were specifically trying to take it to court to challenge the law or bring it more public agenda

            But it’s s good idea and I’d support any company that tried it

        • SaraTonin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          I know, right? This government has chosen to go “well, if the Supreme Court says we have to discriminate against trans people, then i guess we do “, rather than ” if the law can be interpreted in that way then it’s obviously wrong or unclear. We have a large majority and a progressive core of voters, let’s change the law “

          It’s like come on guys, this is exactly the strength of the UK NOT having a written constitution - you can change the law and thereby change the constitution

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      As a parent of two, this is best for the kids they claim to worry about. It makes potty training much less stressful

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      This is not a bad consequence, better for all of us, even if the trigger is fear and spite