In the student union here at Manchetser University ladies can no longer visit the ladies room, because there is no ladies room. There’s no men’s room either.

Instead there are ‘toilets’ and ‘toilets with urinals’.

Previous labelling was deemed ‘genderist’ – offensive to those who don’t fit in the gender boxes.

UMSU Welfare Officer said in an interview for the BBC:

If you were born female, still present quite feminine, but define as a man you should be able to go into the men’s toilets – if that’s how you define.

And presumably vise versa.

Now, unisex toilets are not a new idea, and have been batted around for a while now. A few days ago I overheard that they had recently been shouted down at the BBC.

What is unusual is the apparent reasoning behind the move: some who define as transsexual and transgender have complained that they are uncomfortable using the men’s toilets.

But if this is the case, why not use the women’s toilets? If they self defined as women, wouldn’t that be a more obvious choice? (and the same would go for people with ‘woman’s bits’ who self defined as men).

Now clearly, who am I to suppose to know what the ‘obvious choice’ would be in these circumstances. I’m sure there are many reasons why my flippant suggestion doesn’t wash.

But here’s another (admittedly more expensive) idea. The union should install a third genderless loo, with both urinals and cubicles. Women can powder their noses in a man-free environment, and trans-genders can spend a penny without feeling uncomfortable.

Oh, and apparently, we can’t ask if this is political correctness gone mad, because that in itself is an un-pc phrase, according to previously mentioned welfare officer:

using the term ‘mad’ in a derogatory fashion is disabalist

Update:I went into the union to find the old signs still standing. I’ll let you know if they ever actually do get replaced.