Is it illegal for people to use the opposite gender toilets?

Jason_H

This has crossed my mind a few times recently, I know I have drunkenly decided to skip a queue and use the ladies before, or just gone in with friends. I understand the risk of people having sex in the cubical (why would anyone do that???), but is it anywhere within the law that one can be removed from an establishment for using the wrong facilities? I have a transgender friend who uses which ever toilet is free first.

P. Breathnach

It's a trespass: you are going into property where the owner has clearly indicated that you are not given licence.

GerardKeating

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's a trespass: you are going into property where the owner has clearly indicated that you are not given licence.

Is there a specific exemption in Equality legislation to allow for such gender based "discrimination"?

To Elland Back

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's a trespass: you are going into property where the owner has clearly indicated that you are not given licence.

Which would make it a civil matter, would that be correct???

Pat Mustard

To Elland Back wrote: »

Which would make it a civil matter, would that be correct???

The criminal offences surrounding trespass contain additional elements of intention to commit particular crimes. In the absence of such intention, these crimes are not committed. (See ss.11 and 13 of the Public Order Act and s.12 of the Theft Act).

Unless there is a very specific crime of which I am not aware, it appears that no crime is committed.

Therefore, as you say, it appears to be a civil matter.

Commentary on trespass in the Garda Siochana Guide online:

"Trespass" has traditionally been a civil law concept, it involves an entry on to land in the possession of another without lawful authority. Burglary is an unlawful trespass onto a building or part of a building (1) with the intention to commit some arrestable offence or (2) where a person has entered as a trespasser then forms the intention to commit such an offence. In R. v Boyle it was held that where consent to entry is gained by fraud, then that entry is a trespass.

Where an authority to enter lands or premises given by the owner for some specific purpose is abused or exceeded, this will render the entry unlawful as if no authority were given. In the People (D.P.P.) v McMahon, the Gardaí had statutory power to enter licensed premises for the purpose of enforcing the licensing laws, but when they exceeded this power to investigate breaches of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, they were held to be trespassers. In R. v Smith and Jones the two accused entered a house belonging to the father of one of them and stole television. The Court of Appeal held that if a person enters promises knowing that they are entering in excess of their permission or are reckless as to whether he exceeds that permission, then that is sufficient for a court to decide that he is a trespasser.

Losty Dublin

Some years ago in the George men were banned from using the women's rest rooms and vice versa after a couple of alleged sexual assaults. This ban also applied to transgender customers and drag queens/kings. Murder ensured for a few days when it was strictly enforced by security in the pub. After a few days of media attention the bar relented but it was evident at the time that there was no apparent legal premise for them to enforce such a ban.

Atlantic Dawn

Problem is you would need to see the persons originally assigned birth cert to make a decision, people lately change sides so logically you couldn't have something legal standing based on a persons gender on a given day.

coylemj

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Some years ago in the George men were banned from using the women's rest rooms and vice versa after a couple of alleged sexual assaults. This ban also applied to transgender customers and drag queens/kings. Murder ensured for a few days when it was strictly enforced by security in the pub. After a few days of media attention the bar relented but it was evident at the time that there was no apparent legal premise for them to enforce such a ban.

Surely there is a legal premise which is the fact that the management has designated that males may use one facility and females the other and they can then refuse access to males in the female facility and v.v. It's their property after all and since they are providing (more or less) similar facilities for both genders, stopping men from going into the ladies would not constitute discrimination based on gender. This would be like a male employee of a department store insisting on using the female changing room based on a warped notion of gender equality.

Just because the George caved in to 'media attention' doesn't mean what they were doing was illegal.

GardeningGirl

Transgender friend uses both ladies and gents? Talk about having ur cake and eating it!? Lol don't understand that one to be fair...
No idea if it is legal or not but would have thought it's morally objectionable to make a habit of it!
Men in women's or women in men's.

mahoganygas

GardeningGirl wrote:

Transgender friend uses both ladies and gents? Talk about having ur cake and eating it!? Lol don't understand that one to be fair... No idea if it is legal or not but would have thought it's morally objectionable to make a habit of it! Men in women's or women in men's.

Personally I wouldn't object to it.
I can understand why people might feel uncomfortable though.

What's the solution though? Is it unfair to the force a trans gender person into a toilet where they themselves feel uncomfortable?

I've often wondered what is the right answer here. Somebody once suggested to me that if they feel uncomfortable in the male or female toilet, that they should use the disabled toilet.
I really don't think that is fair on them.

GardeningGirl

I get what youre saying. It is a bit of an unusual one. Definitely not the disabled because that's for wheelchair users etc who have difficulty using the regular rest rooms.
Presumably if you're changing gender it is because you want to be the alternate of what you were so you use the one you have changed to?
I can't see many people having a problem with that unless the transgender person is being flagrantly inappropriate.
Guess it's hard to know until in the actual situation!

seamus

There is nothing strictly illegal about using facilities marked for the gender which you are not. Since private premises have the right to refuse and revoke permission of entry, then they are essentially free to make up their own rules and can eject someone for using the wrong toilet, but there are no charges which could necessarily be brought.

In theory you could look at public order/public decency charges or something related to a breach of privacy. But in reality unless you could prove that the individual was in there to do anything other than use the facilities, there's very little that could be made to stick.

I'm not sure there is a "solution" here. If someone feels uncomfortable using a toilet, then get over it or don't use it. Both men's and women's toilets have cubicles, so there's functionally no difference between them. I'm not sure there's any need to pander to delicate little flowers.

Not sure I'd be too concerned about a transgender person using whichever is free first. I've done it once at an establishment that was filled with almost entirely men, and I've frequently seen women use the men's toilets when there's a long line for the ladies.

Likewise I've used the disabled facilities where they're the only ones free, though I'm very conscious to be in and out with them, as some disabled people will have specific issues which mean they can't really wait.

Funnily enough we were discussing how unisex toilets were becoming more popular in clubs and the mother-in-law was convinced, "that has to be illegal. How can they get away with that?"
I don't see what the fuss is, really. My only problem is that unisex toilets means having to queue while the women dawdle, but having to share the facilities probably means women are less likely to be taking their time.

Dial Hard

seamus wrote:

Both men's and women's toilets have cubicles, so there's functionally no difference between them. I'm not sure there's any need to pander to delicate little flowers.

A big bug-bear of my brother's is the lack of baby-changing facilities in men's bathrooms, they're virtually always in the ladies which means if he's out and about with his 18 month old daughter and she needs a nappy change he has to ask a staff member can he use the ladies. Doing so doesn't bother him (no delicate flower he!) but he can't understand why more cafes, bars and restaurants don't just put a changing table in both bathrooms.

RainyDay

Here's the design solution;

http://www.thejournal.ie/ulsu-gender-neutral-2319715-Sep2015/

MarkAnthony

Jason_H wrote: »

(why would anyone do that???)

Don't knock it until you've tried it. I won't question why you're called Jason and using the ladies loo.

In regard to anything in the law about you being removed from the establishment, your implied licence to be there can be revoked for any number of reasons, one might argue that this particular one might be on sticky (very sticky in some Dublin establishment) grounds, but I expect common sense would be applied.

mansize

Sure aren't train toilets unisex? What's the issue???

MarkAnthony

mansize wrote: »

Sure aren't train toilets unisex? What's the issue???

Again don't knock it until you've tried it; but usually there's only one person in a train toilet at a time.

byhookorbycrook

We did it all the time when we worked in Dublin , when the queues for the ladies' in The Bleeding Horse were huge. Loud knock on the door, loud shout to say women on the way in.

What about mothers bringing small boys into the ladies?

hullaballoo

The toilet in my house is unisex as well but slightly different considerations come into play in public places where facilities are share. That said, there's nothing unlawful about unisex toilets anywhere.

Also, although it may be unlawful in some circumstances for opposite genders to use gender-designated toilet facilities, it is not illegal here.

mansize

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Again don't knock it until you've tried it; but usually there's only one person in a train toilet at a time.

Well how many people join you in the loo??

MarkAnthony

mansize wrote: »

Well how many people join you in the loo??

Depends what we're up to usually.

eeguy

mansize wrote: »

Well how many people join you in the loo??

Unisex toilets are becoming more common.

No urinal,and each cubicle is completely enclosed, with a sink and hand dryer in too.

Makes sense if there's not enough room to have two separate bathrooms.

coconnellz

Maybe the solution would be for transgender people use the disabled toilets as they are unisex

MintyMagnum

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Some years ago in the George men were banned from using the women's rest rooms and vice versa after a couple of alleged sexual assaults. This ban also applied to transgender customers and drag queens/kings. Murder ensured for a few days when it was strictly enforced by security in the pub. After a few days of media attention the bar relented but it was evident at the time that there was no apparent legal premise for them to enforce such a ban.

Not alleged, there was an actual violent anal rape of a young girl. I lived in Dublin at the time.

the_pen_turner

i don't want unisex unless there is a marked increase in cubicle numbers.
the toilet is one of the only last areas where men have control (and women in theirs) . if they are unisex there will be women in there talking and doing what ever takes so long in theirs.
we men need to be in and out quick . if they are unisex then women will slow that down.



the only good thing that would happen is that the unisex would have to be kept to the same standards as the ladies. its a palace in there ( I worked for an electrician for a while so was in there helping out). none of the dirt that would be in some gents

eeguy

Jason_H wrote: »

, I know I have drunkenly decided to skip a queue and use the ladies before, or just gone in with friends

Ive never seen a queue for the gents and none for the ladies....

MarkAnthony

eeguy wrote: »

Ive never seen a queue for the gents and none for the ladies....

There's an awful lot of sheltered people in this thread :pac:

To paraphrase Kelly J, have you been resident on the moon?

seamus

Dial Hard wrote: »

A big bug-bear of my brother's is the lack of baby-changing facilities in men's bathrooms, they're virtually always in the ladies which means if he's out and about with his 18 month old daughter and she needs a nappy change he has to ask a staff member can he use the ladies. Doing so doesn't bother him (no delicate flower he!) but he can't understand why more cafes, bars and restaurants don't just put a changing table in both bathrooms.

Honestly I've never actually encountered this as an issue, but maybe I haven't looked hard enough. I'd automatically look to the disabled toilets for a baby changing table (usually there is one), and if it's not there I'd assume there isn't one.

Perhaps I'm naive and there actually is one in the women's in that case

Edit: Actually that's not entirely true. I remember now that I did encounter it once, and I just went into the ladies. It's not like women walk around half-dressed in there.

Paulw

I've been to some places that have unisex toilets. Seldom a problem. All cubicles.

I see one US state though, is taking it to extremes - http://www.occupydemocrats.com/virginia-republican-wants-schools-to-check-childrens-genitals-before-using-bathroom/

It's a crazy world.

MarkAnthony

Paulw wrote: »

I've been to some places that have unisex toilets. Seldom a problem. All cubicles.

I see one US state though, is taking it to extremes - http://www.occupydemocrats.com/virginia-republican-wants-schools-to-check-childrens-genitals-before-using-bathroom/

It's a crazy world.

The Americans: an example to the world that unchecked democracy is not a good thing...

stoneill

Jason_H wrote: »

This has crossed my mind a few times recently, I know I have drunkenly decided to skip a queue and use the ladies before, or just gone in with friends.

Ha!
There is never a queue for the mens and there is ALWAYS a queue for the womens, so I think you just wanted to have a look!

L1011

stoneill wrote: »

Ha!
There is never a queue for the mens and there is ALWAYS a queue for the womens, so I think you just wanted to have a look!

Football/rugby/GAA matches can have the opposite problem - I know of one stadium that actually refitted some of the ladies to gents (half the cubicles out, urinals in) due to severe queues for gents.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Some years ago in the George men were banned from using the women's rest rooms and vice versa after a couple of alleged sexual assaults. This ban also applied to transgender customers and drag queens/kings. Murder ensured for a few days when it was strictly enforced by security in the pub. After a few days of media attention the bar relented but it was evident at the time that there was no apparent legal premise for them to enforce such a ban.

My memory of the signs up at the time are that it applied to drag but not transgender customers - signs were along the lines of "men and ftmtg only"/"women and mtftg only"

RainyDay

Paulw wrote: »

I see one US state though, is taking it to extremes - http://www.occupydemocrats.com/virginia-republican-wants-schools-to-check-childrens-genitals-before-using-bathroom/

It's a crazy world.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The Americans: an example to the world that unchecked democracy is not a good thing...

It's the best democracy that money can buy.