If anyone is interested in where modern ‘inclusive’ toilet ideas came from, here’s a summary:
A work of two American professors is quoted favourably multiple times in a consultation commissioned by the Government for England’s Document T (non-domestic toilets), and many different school design brochures for ‘gender-neutral’ designs. These two professors are transwomen Professor Susan Stryker and gay man Professor Joel Sanders.
Professor Susan Stryker’s interest in design was from when Susan looked at street maps and saw penis shapes in them, in one informative article relating an overhead street map drawing to a diagram of penis amputation. Then moving on in the same article, a discussion on toilet designs to include trans people. This involves making just the toilet cubicle completely private, and then a novel idea of having one way viewing glass at eye level when sitting down so the occupant inside can be watching others. The sinks are outside the cubicle so everyone can mingle together, (presumably whilst being watched by an unknown number of men sitting on the toilet). Stryker is a gender studies professor and has published other works in conjunction with others people may have heard of like Stephen Whittle.
Professor Sanders is Stryker’s business partner in the inclusive ‘civil rights’ toilet design business. Sanders came from a background of writing in Stud magazine, about design elements in toilets that facilitate gay men cruising for sex.
It is interesting that when Sanders discussed his ideas to Harvard students - he says gay men and women objected to them. Gay men (like himself) Sanders dismissed as they have had their time and toilet design should be about trans people now, (presumably not gay sex). Women he dismissed as feminists from a certain generation (readers, if you got this far, here I take a bow). He reckons inclusive toilets are safer because more people will be using them so more eyes to look out for what’s going on (good luck in the completely private cubicles). Again he discussed private cubicles then completely ‘inclusive’ washing stations and grooming stations. Presumably this relies on ‘nice’ men and women milling about keeping an eye on the ‘bad’ men and length of time everyone is in these private toilet cubicles?
I just want to keep toilets safe for everyone. The safest design is one with door gaps so there’s a degree of supervision and it prevents misuse. That can only be a single sex design in regulations, legislation and practice. In that way single sex design is the most inclusive of anyone at their most vulnerable. That includes anyone having a medical episode (11% of cardiac arrests are on the toilet), self harming, drug overdoses or being assaulted.
I have mentioned this to the Good Law Project many times. As this article mentions JK Rowling, there’s more chance they will read it. I will say again to them and the donators: the non-domestic toilet designs you are promoting are more dangerous and less hygienic due to being less easy to clean and ventilate. Regardless, you will never ‘win’ as there is so much regulation and legislation regarding toilets already. That won’t be undone for you.
What you should have been doing with that £500k, is looking at safe ways to incorporate door gaps into mixed sex toilet rooms. This is going to be difficult because of male voyeurism, though I have ideas.
But leave single sex toilets alone - their safer design saves lives and prevents assaults.