The removal of ladies toilets

Oh right, since when did "Britishness" involve mixed sex toilets? Isn't that a "continental" idea?!

Quite a lot of younger women in the profession are Muslim and religious. I can only imagine how excluded they feel.

They need to integrate with the British population, we shouldn't be making concessions for Islamaists.

Thank you for recounting that. I know my question didn’t get asked to Wes Streeting or Bridget Phillipson but I hope at least their researchers saw them and will remember. The most upsetting thing is when things could have possibly been prevented. That’s why I do this. With hospitals and schools they have defibrillators/epipens/meds there but you need to know someone has collapsed in the first place.

If there had been fully enclosed cubicles at St Barts Hospital back then I would have died in 1988. (I don't know what the situation is there now).

It is depressing researching.

Interestingly, Robin Moira White wants to use the women’s but says (although Robin calls them ‘ghettos’) mixed sex toilets are useful for those at a different stage in transition. So both. And by that definition and usage every toilet would be mixed sex and enclosed anyway. Therefore making women’s and men’s obsolete.

My local park has also revamped its loos in the last year or so. So two "unisex" and one with urinals. At a guess who will use the local park most? Most likely women and small children of both sexes. So a majority of users have two loos to choose from; a minority (males over 8 or so) have three.

All done with zero consultation.

There’s another aspect to this ‘what is wrong with men’ question; what is porn doing to us, and to men? Widespread access to porn is a relatively new thing, and research increasingly shows that it’s changing not only the way it is viewed (increased de-sensitivity) and the way men/boys see women. Etc. It’s a massive subject, and often minimised.

@Keeptoiletssafe I don’t think men want mixed sex toilets either. Women don’t want them & so it’s being done for a small minority who are making a big fuss. I’m now a bit unsettled by what another poster has put about men using cubicles to install cameras. What is wrong with men?!

I wish Mumsnet could start a campaign on this.

Unfortunately my research has also indicated the number of websites with hidden camera footage in toilets. See The Guardian article I attached above for the scale of camera usage. I believe this is a greater problem now.

When I started this campaign it was about making sure medically vulnerable people had the safest design of out-of-home toilets. It quickly became apparent that there was so much misuse of toilets. All the convicted voyeurists and rapists I have found in my research are male. They are male crimes.

Toilet cubicles should be as clean and gadget free as possible.

Private cubicles give a man all the time in the world to set up a camera hidden in the various components you should have in enclosed toilets and the extra components (may include: hand dryer, sinks, pipe work, vents, fire alarms, smoke sensors) in a universal design.

I believe that making the toilet cubicle as simple and streamlined as possible is the best way to prevent and discover these. No visible screws etc. The gaps above and below doors, plus having the door rest in the open position, aid ventilation and prevent misuse in men’s and women’s. The sinks can be outside the cubicle. There’s no need for mechanical ventilation within this traditional design of toilet cubicle. Having single sex toilets means men don’t have a reason for being in women’s toilets so that reduces the chances in theirs.

Some men post on social that the sound of women urinating in shared loos arouses them.

I have researched what people who don’t want to use the toilets of their sex want. I have found it is young women who don’t want to use the women’s (or men’s) that want mixed sex until they get them, then some go back to preferring the women’s if they get a bit scared or hate the reduced hygiene.

In a nutshell, there’s little enthusiasm from anyone to use the men’s.

I absolutely loathe mixed sex toilets. The smell, the wee on the seats, queuing up with men, the narrow corridors. Lack of any shared female space. I hate going into one after a random man. I definitely exclude from restaurants and bars that have them in favour of ones with proper toilets.

I work in a profession where about 13% in the top position are woman. Was 6% when I started.
Our professional organisation headquarters has had a recent hugely expensive refurb. And removed the ladies loos. I feel so pissed off any time I visit. There are a few mixed sex cubicles but they are tiny and the capacity is overall much reduced. Not exactly encouraging women! Quite a lot of younger women in the profession are Muslim and religious. I can only imagine how excluded they feel.

The thing is trans women don’t want gender neutral any more than the rest of us. They want the excitement of going into a ladies toilet. So all the woke companies & councils are doing the opposite of what trans women want 🤷🏻‍♀️

I don't want to risk being put in a position where either is possible - or, as I said, where my privacy and dignity are compromised. Hopefully the building regs at present will prevent this happening, but who knows.

There are different requirements for numbers of toilets for men/women
Workplace health, safety and welfare. Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Approved Code of Practice and guidance L24
presumably because urinals can be provided in the men's toilets, making them more efficient, and so there can be fewer.

It seems to me that having enclosed unisex cubicles for everybody removes the reason for having fewer toilets for men, as the speed of 'throughput' isn't going to be anything like a traditional men's toilet with urinals.

That would suggest that more toilets are needed if they are unisex, not fewer!

If this is a new building in England, they are in breach of the Building Regs, which state very clearly that sex-segregated toilets must be provided, unless there isn't enough space.
If it's an older building which used to have the required sex-segregated toilets, removing them for no reason other than to save money appears to contravene Workplace Regs.

All that bother, and potential legal challenges, for what? Saving money, and mistakenly claiming to be more inclusive?🙄

Hidden cameras are more the thing now.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/27/secret-spy-cameras-voyeurism-uk

Don’t worry. Single sex toilets are the only ones under building regs and legislation to have door gaps.

I was pleasantly surprised yesterday on holiday to come across a National Park centre which had 4 separate loos - one accessible, two M/F and one F. Seemed like an appropriate allocation of the available space according to need.

God no - no gap, thank you. I would hate to have to go to the loo with men I don't know standing inches away from the toilet door, hearing my loo noises. Add to that the potential for a phone to be snuck under there and photos taken - and as usual, women become more at risk and more uncomfortable simply to accommodate the arseholes with their xy's.

Having a small gap at the bottom of the doors and partitions is a small price to pay for safe toilets when anyone is at their most vulnerable.

You do realise that these private rooms aren’t secure as they have a mechanism to open them from the outside, don’t you?

Edit: to add the mechanism is rightly there in the building regs to help people who have collapsed. People collapsing behind any door is the number one call out for the London Fire Brigade.

Why would a business or public building to go to the trouble and expense of removing existing sex-segregated toilets, which are perfectly adequate and acceptable for the vast majority of the population, in order to replace them with unisex facilities?

The reason I was given (for our workplace - office, not open to the public) was that it enabled them to have fewer toilets overall. This seems a bit counter intuitive to me but I can't see why our architect would lie about it so I assume it's right. Not sure how the exact numbers work but apparently the minimum number we need for men plus the minimum number we need for women is a larger number than the number we need if everyone can use them all.

Edited - mixed up larger and smaller

I agree that
'I don’t think it reasonable to want individual rooms AND separate male and female bathrooms'

I've long argued that it's unreasonable for transgender people, who are such a tiny percentage of the population, to demand their own toilet provision when the existing configuration of separate men's, women's and accessible toilets cater for 100% of the population

But whether it's 'one or the other' is a matter of legislation and regulations - building regs, workplace regs, health and safety regs - not personal preference.

Why would a business or public building to go to the trouble and expense of removing existing sex-segregated toilets, which are perfectly adequate and acceptable for the vast majority of the population, in order to replace them with unisex facilities?

That doesn't change the fact that most women don't want to pay that price because they don't want them. I would much rather have single sex toilets for many reasons.

I don’t think it reasonable to want individual rooms AND separate male and female bathrooms-it’s one or the other.
Bumping into a male in the corridor is a small price to pay for private rooms