Public bathrooms have consistently been a battleground with regard to hot-button issues like gender.
These usually involve whether or not someone can use a specific-gender restroom.
However, a Facebook user raised concerns about a slightly different topic, that being a cleaner working in a public toilet of the opposite sex.
Facebook Post Claims Concern About Male Cleaner in Female Public Toilet
On 12 August, a Facebook post in the group COMPLAINT SINGAPORE (all-caps version) detailed an alleged story taking place on 11 August. Do note that all claims made in the post are alleged and cannot be confirmed as accurate.
In the story, the OP’s female friend was at Khatib MRT station at 10:05 pm and urgently needed to use the restroom. Since this story takes place in Yishun, you know something is about to go wrong.
At the time, the male toilet was allegedly being cleaned while the female toilet remained open.
Ten minutes later, the male cleaner then entered the female public toilet to clean it. The OP added that he was unsure if the cleaner announced his entry, but the cleaner did speak to the female friend and informed her that he needed to start cleaning.
The woman requested more time first, but the cleaner then allegedly disregarded her and began cleaning, splashing water into her cubicle during the process. It’s not clear what form this action took.
This “forced” her to leave immediately, with the cleaner then supposedly giving her an accusing stare like she was at fault.
The OP criticised this alleged unacceptable conduct from the cleaner, calling him disrespectful and unprofessional.
He pointed to the cleaning schedule of 10:30 pm to 11 pm as proof that the cleaner could have waited or done another area first, as he was ahead of time.
Next, the OP brought up the “privacy and safety” concerns of a male cleaner in a female toilet. He claimed that most women he asked felt uncomfortable and that there was a “potential risk of misconduct” in these situations.
He ended off by asking how other women felt about this issue.
Netizens Divided on Issue & Criticise Alleged Rude Behaviour of Cleaner
Perhaps unsurprisingly, most replies to the post were by men.
A commenter under the Facebook post mentioned that standard procedure for toilet cleaning involved the cleaner shouting “Housekeeping!” twice. If nobody spoke up in reply, the cleaner would continue to wash regardless of anyone inside a cubicle.
Another person replied by saying that getting water into the occupied cubicle was wrong, but the initial commenter defended the cleaners in that they only had 30 minutes to clean the entire toilet, refill the soaps, change out toilet paper, and clean the sink and mirror.
Not to mention, public restrooms apparently have the power to make people forget how to use toilets in a non-disgusting way, which cleaners have to deal with as well in their schedule.
As such, they would inevitably get water into any occupied cubicles when working.
One woman netizen weighed in her opinion that cleaners of the opposite gender should not enter the toilets if someone was still inside.
When the post was shared on the Instagram page “@sgfollowsall“, it ignited debates there too.
Another female commenter there expressed that she didn’t find the concept of a man cleaning the female toilet wrong at all, as people “need their jobs.”
Instead, she targeted the criticism at the alleged inconsiderate behaviour of the cleaner in splashing water into an occupied cubicle, saying it was unacceptable regardless of gender.
Many users on both sites also brought up another side of the issue in the post: that being female cleaners in men’s restrooms.
Some argued that this was actually a bigger problem, since women’s restrooms had the benefit of extra privacy in cubicles, whereas many men used urinals.
Many commentators also suggested that having cleaners only work in restrooms of their specific gender may be difficult due to a manpower issue.
Others considered this a non-issue at all, especially considering public restrooms are usually hosts to unfathomable forms of revolting terror, like being so dirty they get shut down or having to pay 20 cents to use them.
Here’s a simplified summary of the South Korea martial law that even a 5-year-old would understand:
Read Also:
- Salon Allegedly Charged $880 Treatment Package to Elderly Who Has Hearing Difficulties
- Man Replaces M’sia-Registered Car With a S’pore Plate & Drives It Without a Driving Licence
- Confirmed: Allianz Withdraws Its Offer to Buy Income Insurance
- 10th Floor Resident Leaves Baby Stroller On Air Conditioner Compressor
- $400 Worth of Durians Delivered to Customer; Customer Allegedly Takes Durians Without Making Payment
- Woman Borrows Touch ‘N Go Card From S’pore Driver to Cross JB Checkpoint & Didn’t Return Card
Advertisements
