Why do leisure centres no longer provide single-sex changing rooms? Women’s Rights Network on the case…

Thats exactly why Changing Villages work. They can be in the cubicle next to parent without the risk of them being in a completely separate area.

And you never answered the question how are you protecting them?
We live in a world were people are loathed to let 8/9/10 year olds go anywhere alone yet people seem to want the to be put in to a very vulnerable situation getting changed in a completely separate changing area.

I mentioned 46% of kids don't live with both parents.
God only knows what percentage are kids with two mums or two dads.
Or kids who are in the care system.

Do they just not get to go swimming?

I don't think it appropriate for 8/9/10 year old children to be using a changing room which doesn't match their biological sex. It is normal for puberty to start from 8 to 12 years old.

Yes this is an example of how male behaviour affects design.

It’s clear what’s happened. They put standard cubicles in that best work for single sex changing areas. What are the negatives of these alterations? Well you can’t chat to your child or friends so easily if they are in the next cubicle without the gap. People have lost the facility to sit down. I used to get handed all the wet stuff under the partition otherwise my children’s dry clothes would be soaking wet. It also means plasters and other peoples hairs built up at the sides. The cubicles with be more humid and smelly.

This next bit is blunt but I am saying it as it is. If someone vomits, wees, bleeds, ejaculates or poos on the floor or walls it is not as cleanable by drench soaking then draining. Remnants will be on the sides. Tragically you’ll occasionally get someone die in a leisure centre changing cubicle (like I have listed in school toilets) and all leisure centres and schools all have defibrillators, so it depends how they fall as to whether they are seen so that defibrillator is used effectively.

This is why design can be life-saving. I saw the young woman my uni friends and I saved as we were facing the row of ladies nightclub toilets head-on so we immediately saw her. Her blue hand was sticking out of the door gap but we still would have seen her body on the floor it not. It depends on angles of approach and how they fell and whether doors rest in the open position. If anything else had been happening to her we would have seen, had it been voyeurism or an assault. We got to her in seconds and got her breathing again, clearing her airway congested with vomit. In a gender neutral design I am certain she would have died.

The new DfE guidance has single sex toilets and sinks. It has sanitary provision machines in areas that boys are not allowed in (schools had a scheme for supplying free stuff but boys messed about with it). It still says gaps can be 5mm but this appears to be less rigid. What needs to happen is a sentence about the advantages and responsibilities for safeguarding children with collapsible conditions like epilepsy, diabetes, heart conditions, endometriosis, drug overdoses and mental health crises in their care. And safeguarding girls (and boys) from assaults from within the cubicle. Preventing all sex in toilets is a good thing and it is illegal.

In the Sarah Everard inquiry it said we need to design-out crime. It also said systems need to improve so we are looking at where crimes happen and collate centrally to build a picture.

The WRN have done a report on hospitals. They couldn’t find out exactly where sexual assaults were happening within wards because there’s no system in place on recording. Research in India is ahead of us, and research shows unisex school toilets are a rape risk (girls already knew this and were going in the open). India have introduced single sex toilets in schools.

British Transport Police come closest to collating meaningful data - on train carriages they can’t tell me where sexual assaults and rapes happen. In stations they can tell me what crime happened in a toilet (but not the design). They can tell me the sex of the victims because of crime codes but only the gender of the attacker. All the attackers are male gender except two that are female gender.

I know from years (!) of looking at this now, what’s going on in private designed toilets in public places. However, people did always know this. It was built into legislation and regulations that people ignored to be this new ‘inclusive’- which is exclusionary to more vulnerable people. Women know - you can see how we look at design is different from the men that build. It’s commonsense that you unfortunately learn at a young age.

You can see on this thread we mitigate and risk assess for ourselves and our children constantly, even though we do it subconsciously. But it is worth trying to work out how to design better because it saves lives and prevents assaults.

Reality is changing villages aren't going to go away and they do suit families and school groups.
You might not care about primary ages boys or girls whos Dads don't want them in the female changing alone but I do.

Its probably more important to fight for single sex facilities to actually be single sexed, and not single gender.
Than to moan about changing villages. Facilities swapped to them for a reason. That reason hasn't gone away.

The so called tween issue is not really an issue the girls are safe in the female provision or can use the family facilities just a separate 1 from the parents if privacy is wanted and the boys can use the male provision or the family ones too.
Convenience of families and or wants of a 20 year old must come behind the safety of women and girls.

Family changing would certainly help to an extent but there is always going to be the tween issue, they want privacy from you but you still want to be able to hear them.

And I think thats what Changing Villages gets round. You can hear them, you know they are ok.

And what about the rapes, sexual assaults and filming/voyeurism that women suffer in mixed sex facilities is that an acceptable cost for not having to deal with complaints about men and boys over 7 being in the female facilities? Or should we have some family changing facilities and have single sex facilities that are enforced single sex

So whats your suggestion to protect young boys 8/9/10 is still very young? Or are thry collateral damage in single sex provision.

How about young girls 8/9/10 who need help getting hair dried but the swimmer in the family is Dad. How are you helping them in single sex provision.

I also use a gym with single sex its not that long ago from i came out to find a Granddad asking were the two girls ok in there.

I don't see how dignity is affected for either sex in unisex changing villages.
They definitely have advantages for families. But I also don't know anywhere with options its either communal single sex or cubicles in a changing village.

You seem to be stuck in a repetitive loop Yes, these categories exist ( 'men' and 'women') - but simply repeating " men need to deal with it" is not very helpful or providing any solutions to known problems. We still require measures to deal with matters in the meantime. This is why we have single sex spaces and categories - to provide a level of protection and dignity in the face of known issues and risks.

Such issues and risks have always existed and probably always will. How we handle these issues and risks is the question. It is not helpful nor pragmatic to simply say " Leave it for men to deal with".

Boys up to the age of 8 are already permitted to accompany their mother.

Of course, but there are good reasons why boys up until the age of 8 are permitted to accompany their mother into a female facility. This is a safeguarding measure. Safeguards exist to manage known risks.

Do you have any idea about the different sex offending rates between men and women?

Single sex changing rooms and opposite sex children has been an issue for decades.
Its probably a bigger issue now 46% of 16 year olds don't live with both parents.

My own mum moaned about the switch to Changing Villages but then said she stopped swimming as a child with her Dad as she didn't want to go into the man's, and he wasn't comfortable with her going into the women's alone.

My friends mum used to sit spectating, doing her knitting while the two DDs were in the pool with Dad. She accompanied the girls in the changing rooms.

So many families don't have the option of both parents being able to accompany children.
But so many kids faff, in changing rooms and really aren't completely independent at getting showered, dried and changed at just turned 8/9 or drying hair.

We live in a world where people are loathed to leave an 8/9 year old to walk home from school alone yet people expect them to be able to navigate a changing room alone.

The changing villages that I use all started with a 10-15cm gap at the bottom of the panel between the cubicles as well as at the door.
Those have been amended with an additional panel going to the floor being added to prevent cameras being pushed underneath.

However the gaps have remained at the front on the corridor side, but it would need to be someone very brazen to push a camera under there when they are in the open and can be seen.

At the same time as adding the extra panel pieces the did a mix of half ceilings or rails above the end of the cubicle where the bench is. Preventing people being able to stand on the bench putting cameras over the top.

@Lavender14 I am glad you can see why I am talking about how the design is important. When people go on about ‘gender-neutral’ spaces it normally means full enclosure floor to ceiling. They don’t realise gaps are there for health and safety. When it is a private space in a mixed sex area it is vulnerable to misuse and the lack of any supervision leads to poorer safeguarding. Of course 100% of people in prison for voyeurism are men. Men film women and occasionally other men over and under the doors and partitions but this can be quite risky for getting caught. Hidden cameras (easier to set up in a private cubicle) seem to be preferred by more ‘professional’ career men like teachers, doctors and a politician, who I believe was filming men.

I do not know the designs of the changing rooms where the worst offences against women took place - if I were looking at designing out crime in changing rooms that’s where I would start. I would have expected, off the back of my toilet research, to be a more private design.

I am very much in favour of young boys accompanying their mums to toilet and changing room cubicles that have door gaps, particularly because of my research. Children, as well as cleaners, are the exceptions to the single sex rule. I am not in favour of adding more mixed sex (therefore private) toilet cubicles or rooms in public areas.

Presumably that's because of the frequency of children needing support with changing as opposed to toileting though? My 3 yo can use a toilet reasonably independently but would be unable to rinse/ wash/dry and dress himself without some help. Plus the length of time you'd expect a child to be in the facility - quick pee: 2 minutes, getting dried and changed is much longer. So a caregiver waiting outside isn't going to know that anything is wrong or go looking for a child for much longer. That will be even harder for children with additional vulnerabilities/ long or thick hair. And with the number of children using leisure centres for swimming lessons as well as trips out with family, that's a significant proportion of the leisure centres clientele who need support around changing specifically. It's unrealistic to expect there to be a caregiver of the same gender available in every case.

I completely understand the issues around voyeurism and its something I'm vigilant of when using village changing as well but young male victims unaccompanied in a quiet changing room are surely more at risk in some ways from harmful predatory male behaviour than an adult woman who will have different skills to deal with a horrible situation like that, or a child with a safe adult present who is more likely to know what to do in response as well as identifying what's happening in the first instance and able to articulate it to report or call for help. A child is unlikely to have the capacity at 7 or 8 to understand and respond safely. Plus the additional risk of it escalating from voyeurism to more violent hysical harm.

Not to minimise the impact of voyeurism in any way its a deeply intrusive and horrible thing to have to go through. I just think it's a difficult solve when you're factoring in children and vulnerable adults who have different needs than a non-vulnerable adult woman.

If I'm out by myself I'd always choose female only changing/ toilets but if I'm out with a male child then I'd be choosing village toilets/ changing for their benefit moreso than my own.

And the worst of it is, you'd hope that evidenced-based detail like this, as
@Keeptoiletssafe has often pointed out, would inform governemt decisions. Sadly, there seems little movement.

In a swimming pool I used to use the single sex changing room was a range of cubicles with locks on the door and gaps top and bottom. Same as is in my local pool which has gender neutral changing.

In another I've used that is gender neutral it has a mix of cubicles with top/bottom open and floor to ceiling lockable options for changing.
What is the point you are trying to make?

You have two different mixed sex changing options there with different risks. Because of the known problems with voyeurism, which is male behaviour, the temptation is to make changing room cubicles with floor to ceiling privacy. However, it’s difficult as I said before due to chlorinated water and also ventilation and cleaning are much easier with floor to door gaps so it is unusual for any design to be floor to ceiling in a swimming pool area.

So basically women have to put up with a huge amount of voyeurism in mixed sex changing rooms when there’s door gaps. However, if there’s no door gaps, it’s worse for health and safety for both sexes. These are the designs to tell your son to avoid if he has a choice, whether it’s mixed sex or single sex.

There’s subtle differences between changing rooms and toilet cubicles. Mixed sex toilet cubicles aren’t allowed to have door gaps, presumably because of voyeurism and discomfort. It seems bizarre we have mixed sex changing rooms where it ‘is allowed’ supposedly.

The single sex changing rooms I have been in were one big room with benches, then a few cubicles with 20cm gaps below the door and partitions and space above the standard length door and partitions to the high ceiling.

The one Family room was an enclosed room by itself and a door almost down to the floor.

Blergh to curtains. Never been in a leisure centre with those.

@Lavender14 I was genuinely interested. There are lots of different designs as the last couple of posts show. Most of my work is on toilets. Mixed sex rooms are private and enclosed. Single sex cubicles aren’t always completely private and are healthier and safer because of it.

With changing rooms it’s different because you almost always have to have a floor gap. The cubicle would rot from the amount of chlorinated water than needs draining. However, the one family changing room I mentioned above had a sloping floor to a drain in the middle so was private.

There are various ways you can try and design-out crime and safeguard. I was wondering what designs you were comparing - whether it was like for like.

I'm not sure what you're getting at because this is different in every venue?

In a local gym I use the single sex changing rooms is one fully open plan communal room. No cubicles or curtains available.

In a swimming pool I used to use the single sex changing room was a range of cubicles with locks on the door and gaps top and bottom. Same as is in my local pool which has gender neutral changing.

In another I've used that is gender neutral it has a mix of cubicles with top/bottom open and floor to ceiling lockable options for changing.

What is the point you are trying to make?

My experience when council sports facilities had single sex changing, the cubicles had curtains.
The two pools I used as a child, one had thin nylon like thin shower curtains that stopped about an adults knees, the other had thick PVC curtains that were so thick and stiff they neither opened or shut. They sort of hung like a big plastic flap with gaps down both sides.

Both pools eventually went to changing villages, with proper doors that actually locked shut, yes they did have teething issues with perverted individuals and did things to prevent people being able to stand on the bench and see over and extended the side panels to the floor. But it does mean you can talk to your child in the next cubicle.

I'd much rather have proper mixed sex cubicles with actual doors than return to single sex thats not enforced with half hearted curtains, that are so thin you could spit through them or so thick they don't actually move or meet the sides of the opening.

You didn’t answer my question. Design-wise, as in the structure (doors, partitions, walls, entrances) is there anything different between the single sex changing area and the mixed sex changing area?

"And that's why it's so important there are gender neutral options without taking away from female only spaces."

Go back and read my posts again.

''If you feel less safe in a gender neutral option then use the female only one.''

Go back and read the title of the thread again.

It's safer if you are able to be there with your opposite gender child so they aren't alone with a harmful male, or aren't going to become ill/ have a seizure/ be unable to properly dry and dress themselves alone in the male changing room because their female care giver cant be there? I mean I'd have thought that was quite obvious.

If you feel less safe in a gender neutral option then use the female only one.