Unisex toilets in new office - dread going into work

Sorry if that sounded abrupt @Clockworkchocolateorange - I was rushing.

I can’t find all the relevant stuff now but despite the fevered imaginations wishes of the money geabbers developers, a cubicle is a cubicle and there is nothing in the regs that says a room can also be a cubicle.

This was fully accepted and widely known until about 5 minutes ago when, driven by the trans lobby demanding for men to access women’s spaces, the solution to solve all was to pretend that cubicles are rooms to get around the regs and make them unisex. Why v obviously doesn’t satisfy the trans lobby because men actually want women’s spaces, not unisex spaces.

oh and although you have spoken to your managers already you need to be clear that this is a SEXUAL HARRASSMENT issue not a same sex toilets issue per se. I'm sure it's totally doable to have a similar toilet set up and for everything to be absolutely fine.

Absolute bobbins that your management can't do anything. I won't comment on the legal ins and outs but at the very least one of your managers needs to have a word with one of their managers and explain that their behaviour is unacceptable and that you'll be taking it up with the building management company if it doesn't improve.

Let's not. Disabled toilets are already highly limited and are for those with accessibility needs.

The OP shouldn't be using the accessible toilets, making them less accessible to those who need them so then her employer is let off the hook for their legal duty to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

No. A cubicle is not a room.

Yes. It amazes me how some people can’t understand this.

From your comments, the specific toilet string gives them the opportunity to make toilet related comments that they might be unlikely to make elsewhere as it just wouldn’t make sense.

Stopping men having access to spaces where women need privacy actually physically prevents a whole host of unwanted behaviours.

See swimming pool changing rooms for example. The number of sexual assaults/voyeurism in the mixed sex changing villages is far higher than in the single sex changing rooms. Give a man the opportunity and he will often take it.

I believe as long as the toilets themselves are in cubicles floor to ceiling, then that is not breaking any laws. The wash basins don’t have to be in the cubicle themselves. This is how to loo set ups are at my work. Is there not a disabled toilet you can use?

Sorry if everyone has said this but your employer has a duty to protect you from sexual harassment and if you have informed them they are not complying wiht this duty. I've just got this from Google because I'm in a rush but you should do a bit more research and write to HR quoting the act and noting their vicarious liability.

Edited to add: the new requirement in the Amendment to proactively anticipate the potential risks and taking measures to mitigate them should also be noted. These duties are in addition to their duty to take action to prevent further instances of sexual harrassment once it has been reported, which it has.

"Employers now have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. This duty, outlined in the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, came into effect on October 26, 2024. Employers must proactively identify potential risks of sexual harassment and implement measures to mitigate them. This includes developing and enforcing anti-harassment policies, providing training, and establishing clear reporting and investigation procedures.

Key aspects of the employer's duty:
Proactive prevention:
Employers are expected to anticipate potential risks of sexual harassment and take steps to prevent it from happening in the first place. This is a shift from a reactive approach to one where employers are expected to be proactive.

Reasonable steps:
The law doesn't specify exactly what these steps are, but they should be reasonable in the context of the specific workplace and the nature of the work.

Duty of care:
Employers have a general duty of care to protect the wellbeing of their employees, which includes taking steps to prevent sexual harassment.

Vicarious liability:
Employers can be held responsible for the actions of their employees, even if they were not directly involved in the harassment.

Consequences of breach:
While there isn't a free-standing claim for breach of the preventive duty, an employer's failure to take reasonable steps can lead to an increased compensation award if an employee wins a sexual harassment claim in an employment tribunal. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) can also take enforcement action against employers who fail to comply with the duty."

Sadly I am all too familiar with the single sex lack of support from unions, but they may be able to advocate against sexual harassment and objection handle against their fluffy reasons for their 60% office attendance if it is the only way to keep OP safe.

Actually the ‘it won’t kill you’ is not technically correct. People are more likely to be saved in the event of a medical emergency in the right design of single sex toilet.

If there’s any ambiguity and always in unisex, toilet cubicles/rooms become completely private.

Most places like schools and council offices have defibrillators but you have to know someone has collapsed in order to help them.
Toilets are the place people rush to when they feel ill. The process of elimination can put strain on the body which leads to a medical emergency. People have been left for days in toilets that are private.

Thats why we need single sex toilets. They’re the only ones regulated to have door gaps. They prevent ‘wilful misbehaviour’ and allow some supervision to keep people safe.

Sadly, many unions refuse to represent or advocate for women who want single sex spaces.

The Free Speech Union may be able to advise.

There is a cohort of people obsessed with men being permitted to share toilets with women. They are on every thread about toilets to argue for this. The desperation to convince others it should be allowed is palpable. No doubt they have their reasons.

This doesn't negate the fact you're entitled to work in a workplace where you are free of sexual harassment and the risk of assault.

I'd say the risk of assault is pretty high given the comments made to you.

Apply for flexible working under the flexible working request and request to work at home full time.

Make a diary of comments made, when they've been made, who made them even as just descriptors if nothing else.

Your company can't force the other company to fire or investigate someone else for their behaviour so on a balance of risk assessment and need you will have substantial evidence in your favour.

Of course your company will try and say it isn't workable and give you guff, but unless it genuinely can't work with business needs then they can't lawfully deny you this request.

If you're not in a union, join one.

There's always one, isn't there? If you are happy to go back to the days of "whole streets sharing outside loos" then good for you. However, l would imagine that some of the same problems the OP is encountering were prevalent then. Also, some people are cleaner than others, both then and now. I would not be at all happy with this situation @SocialMol. Toilets should be private places without the worry of harassment. Why is it always women who are expected to put up and shut up? We read about these issues in connection with unosex toilets at school - thankfully, single sex toliets will no longer be tolerated - and these young men appear to have not grown up at all since their school days. I would keep a record of every incident. This situation is completely unacceptable and needs to be changed.

Also these men's behaviour needs to be reported to HR

Grenfell was meant to be built according to building regs as well

There are some posters who are either bots, Russian trolls or other trolls or really thick women on here who think the behaviour OP has described is acceptable, what fresh hell is this that people are saying it's ok ?

And your policy must be that you work somewhere that is compliant with the law and doesn't put you at risk of being sexually harassed or assaulted.

Your offices arbitrary statistics about office attendance are putting you at risk of danger, when there's an acceptable and safe workplace for you at home.

Meanwhile if they insist on attendance they must be compliant with the law, they cannot operate a business that isn't compliant with the law and simply stating their hands are tied is not a get out of jail free card.

Cos no man would ever rape or assault a woman window they?!

you need to put your concerns in writing and go via HR. There’s no way “nothing can be done”. They will be in serious trouble if they don’t make adjustments.

Boys in schools have this attitude. These boys in this article grow into these young men.

You do realise ‘lockable’ does not mean secure don’t you? You have got to be able to quickly open up a toilet cubicle from the outside (with the mechanism so that the door can change to go outwards) for building regs. This is because so many people collapse in toilets eg 11% of cardiac arrests happen on the loo. Unisex toilets have to be private and resist the passage of sound. Thats why similar designs have been nicknamed ‘rape cubicles’ in schools.

Cleaning wise, it is medically proven that unisex toilets have the greatest number of pathogens in them too. The lack of ventilation concentrates them and they are less easy to clean because of the privacy partitions and door. The concealed unit is not good for health and safety for medically vulnerable people, women and girls.

I believe it is a reasonable adjustment for people with invisible disabilities such as epilepsy, diabetes, asthma, heart conditions, to have a safe toilet - which means a single sex toilet with door gaps to ensure quick detection if you collapse.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/drug-dealing-drinking-dirt-problems-28517175

Funny that you think that when the building industry continue to aim to save as much money as possible in all areas from design to fitout.

Where the LAs were getting brownie points to train their staff to be inclusive and progressive and get ahead of the law when it came to mixed sex toilets.

I'm sure someone will have shared this with you already, OP - I'm not going to read the full thread as I've no time - but my understanding is that this is illegal: workplaces are obliged to provide single sex toilets, and the recent Supreme Court judgement has confirmed (as if this ever should have been required) that single sex means, well, single sex.

To the poster on p1 saying to "get over it" - and the inevitable others who I'm sure will have intervened in subsequent pages - have some insight, empathy and common sense. Stats unambiguously show women are substantially less safe in mixed-sex toilets in any context.

Here's a thought experiment for you.

Transfer OP's situation to any other protected demographic: a person of colour, disabled individual or gay man, for example. A situation has been created in which they're facing regular and sometimes intimidating verbal abuse related to their respective protected characteristic. Think about the language that would involve. Notice how unacceptable it (hopefully!) feels even to think those words as a thought experiment. And think about how, 50 years ago, many people dismissed any concern about such abuse as unjustified.

Now think about how women are facing this and a measurable impact on their physical safety.

What makes women's rights so very different?

Your answer is proof that this is an issue.

If you think, "Nothing. Nothing does," you're right.

If, conversely, you default to a string of unthinking justifications - think back to those justifications against racism and ableism and homophobia of yesteryear, and be honest about how they sound now. Do they hold up? Do your reasons now hold up? And perhaps look at yourself very hard in the mirror.

(PS If your answer was "trans rights" and "inclusion", advocate for mixed-sex spaces for all trans people and their allies who are indifferent to these, such as yourself. Campaign for women to have the right to choose whether they share their spaces with males. If you give them the opportunity to use these, and the majority embrace it - great, problem solved! No exposure for trans individuals, and single sex spaces for women who feel vulnerable with strange males. If women, given the choice to consent to mix-space spaces don't consent to use it? Well, right there is your evidence that there is a clash of rights. And this needs consideration, and care. But not an indifferent, wholesale replacement of women's rights with a "more important" demographic's).