Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

York theatre royal toilets

192 replies

pigsknickers · 02/01/2020 19:57

I visited today and was irritated to find that one of the two women's toilets is now unisex (and yes the men still have two to themselves). Here's the text of the email I've written them; I'm planning to c&p it to any venues I come across who've pulled this stunt from now on. Awaiting waffle bollocks response.

"I visited the theatre today with my mum and two small children, and I want to tell you how appalled we were to find you've designated one of the two female toilet facilities as unisex, while the men still have two single sex facilities. There are so many reasons why we found this to be a misjudged move on your part:

  1. Women need more, not fewer public toilets than men. We are often looking after small children or elderly female relatives in the toilets. We need more time and space to deal with menstruation (which we really don't want to do in a shared space with men). Many venues suffer from long queues to use the ladies' as it is. When I visited today, the toilets in question were full of women trying to toilet their children, with men adding to the overcrowding (while there was a men-only facility just next door). Yes, I could have used the women-only toilets upstairs, but with two small children in tow I had neither the time nor the energy to drag them up two flights of stairs.
  2. Men's toilets are dirty. Men tell us this all the time; many men take steps to ensure they won't have to use a cubicle while they're out, because men urinate on the seats and floor. This gets worse in venues where alcohol is served.
  3. Women need privacy away from men when performing intimate functions. I sometimes have very heavy periods, and do not want to wash blood off my hands while standing next to a man. I don't want a man to overhear me explain to my three year old what a sanitary towel is.
  4. Women in states of vulnerability are not safe in shared sex spaces. Your cubicles are not even floor-to-ceiling; you are making it easier for predatory males to intimidate, harass and attack women and girls.
  5. Women have fought long and hard for single-sex provision so that they have equal access to public life. Both the WHO and UNICEF emphasise the importance of single-sex toilets in protecting girls in developing countries from rape, and allowing them to participate in public life. Without adequate toilet provision, women and girls in this country too would have their safety and dignity compromised whenever they leave the house. I would be very interested to know what Equality Impact and Risk Assessments were carried out before this change was implemented.
  6. It is just not acceptable that men now have access to 2.5 of 4 toilet facilities, while women - who I presume make up at least 50% of your clientele (I would guess more based on today's audience) - only have access to 1.5 of them. I anticipate an explanation that this change was made to make better provision for transgender people, and while this may be a laudable aim, I invite you to consider why it was deemed appropriate to remove a significant proportion of your female customers' toilet provision. This sends a very clear message that you value your female customers less than any other demographic, and for this reason I will not be visiting the Theatre Royal in the foreseeable future."
OP posts:
Thelnebriati · 25/01/2020 21:03

Basically the standards say that providers are supposed to offer X number of toilets and Y number of urinals per number of men, X number of toilets per number of women (including sanitary waste disposal bins), and Z number of accessible toilets per total number of potential users.

So an accessible/single occupancy (mixed sex) cubicle must contain a sink and a sanitary waste disposal bin.

Thelnebriati · 25/01/2020 21:00

This link explains what a self contained toilet is. The legislation is actually explained using single occupancy disabled toilets as the example, because in all other situations (schools, the workplace, shopping centres etc) toilets are supposed to be single sex.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441786/BR_PDF_AD_M2_2015.pdf

AutumnRose1 · 25/01/2020 20:44

So the Wellcome toilets aren’t actually legal? I’m confused.

Thelnebriati · 25/01/2020 20:37

In mixed sex toilets the cubicles are supposed to be self contained and that means the sinks should be inside the cubicle, as they are with disabled toilets.

AutumnRose1 · 25/01/2020 20:20

“ I'm still peeved though! You have to share the sink area with mixed sex and there's just something annoying about that.”

They’ve done that on the ground floor of the Wellcome too.

Qcng · 25/01/2020 20:12

The science museum in London have done similar.
I was peeved as I go there a lot with my DC.

Thing is though, they do actually have floor-to-ceiling cubicles in their unisex, and I believe they changed both the men's and women's on one floor to unisex (no urinals), so there wouldn't be much leverage in a complaint.

I'm still peeved though! You have to share the sink area with mixed sex and there's just something annoying about that.
Plus, knowing a bloke has been into the cubicle and could have pissed all over the loo seat.

Its all just... so... Stupidly woke. No one wants it.

Daughterofmabel · 25/01/2020 19:33

Great letterpigsknickers
Id be interested to see how you get on.

LemonGingerCakes · 25/01/2020 19:19

In a rush, not rich

LemonGingerCakes · 25/01/2020 19:19

Haven’t RTFT as in a rich, but wanted to say thank you to @pigsknickers for saying what I wanted to say, but wasn’t able about the York Theatre Royal toilets.

StealthPolarBear · 25/01/2020 19:03

Op this is brilliant

Mayomaynot · 25/01/2020 18:45

A review on Tripadvisor will inform lots of people too. Always good for women to know what's going on. I had lots of views of a similar review I posted about a different venue.

KatvonHostileExtremist · 25/01/2020 14:41

I'm originally from York too, I might set my mum on them. She'll rally the troops.

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 25/01/2020 10:26

This pervasive nonsense is creeping in absolutely everywhere. What's seriously irritating is the hedging and flannelling that's usually sent as a response to anyone who objects.

My DH won't take DC5 into male toilets if I'm with them and can take him to the female ones. Even he sees them as disgusting.

Good on you for writing, OP. I'm reasonably local to York. I'm intending to do the same.

pigsknickers · 25/01/2020 04:53

Ooh I did a bold, get in!

OP posts:
pigsknickers · 25/01/2020 04:42

Herewego thank you for your clarification about sex discrimination, I will keep that in mind.
It's good to know others have written to them too - I'm not expecting a complete about face but they've obviously got the wind up them a bit. I'm interested to see what response I'm going to get now it's gone past the PR people.

OP posts:
Rhubarbisevil · 24/01/2020 23:38

Great letter. And please give them hell for threatening to sack the love of my Panto life, David Leonard.

Mumoftwoyoungkids · 24/01/2020 23:23

Am rather amazed to see this. I went the day before you and also sent an email and got a reply from Rachel. My letter wasn’t as good as yours but I’m now thinking that maybe needs a follow up reply after all.....

Off to rant.....

BikeRunSki · 24/01/2020 23:13

Absolutely superb letters @pigsknickers. My dad would have been proud of you!

BlackeyedSusan · 24/01/2020 22:55

Thank you for writing on behalf of those of us who are concerned.

HereWeGoAgain234 · 24/01/2020 22:47

I think they’d be at risk of a claim due to MRAs who will always take exception to anything which improves women lives.

The theatre would have to show that men have not been treated less favourably which they might be able to do by a time and motion study to compare men’s queues against women’s.

Male and female provision is already likely to be different in terms of urinals and stalls so I think that would also help defend a claim.

TheBewildernessisWeetabix · 24/01/2020 22:42

The tiniest gap will neuter a bold.

so they want to be "inclusive of everyone in our community" but it's fine for us to use the disabled toilet? WTAF??

This is exactly what disabled people said the businesses would do to them if mixed sex facilities were instituted. They were right.

theflushedzebra · 24/01/2020 22:37

Very good letter OP.

Torchlightt · 24/01/2020 22:34

If that's the case, Herewego, does that mean that if eg a theatre provides MORE toilets for women than for men, on the grounds that women spend more time in the toilet because of menstruation, young children, etc, they are unlawfully discriminating against men?

HereWeGoAgain234 · 24/01/2020 22:26

Hi OP

Great letter

A couple of things to keep in mind as you enter into further negotiations:

  1. Direct sex discrimination is less favourable treatment on the grounds of sex in comparison with treatment of opposite sex. Women have less toilet provision than men and it’s less accessible. That is on any view less favourable.
  1. There is no defence to direct se discrimination.
  1. Unisex toilet provision is unacceptable as indirect sex discrimination against women due to increased risks

You are on solid ground with your challenge. Don’t accept excuses or justification - there is no defence to direct discrimination so it cannot be justified.

EwwSprouts · 24/01/2020 22:09

Interesting timing as the fall off in sales for pantomime which is one of their biggest annual productions has been splattered across the media.