Full Council Chaos. Bristol City Council refusing to implement single sex services

I know people have said this before, KTS, but just feel it bears repeating in the light of the above - you're amazing. Thank you so much for everything you do, and your careful explanations of it all on here. I recently shared with a doctor friend of mine the risks and benefits of the different door types you've described. It simply hadn't occurred to him - you could virtually hear the train of thought stopping in its tracks. So there's another someone out there now, with some influence, who's passing on your knowledge: it makes a difference. I just wish those with the power to really change things listened more often. I hope against hope that Bristol are reading, too.

To be fair those deaths are of a wide range of designs, however the vast majority of the ones I can identify the design from are private. A rarer example in single sex toilets was one person who had 3 overdoses over a period of a year - the 3rd time no one saw them until it was too late. The design had saved them twice previously. Those toilets have since closed down.

Council office, nightclub, school, pub, council public toilet, leisure centre, supermarket, work office, McDonald’s, gym, festival portaloo, general hospital, cardiac ward in hospital, psychiatric hospital, restaurant, shopping centre, train station, gp surgery….these are a few that I can remember off the top of my head. It’s a nightmare to collate it all as no one else does it. I know it’s one person every 5 to 6 months on average in a station toilet because British Transport Police do collect data.

Thats horrendous @Keeptoiletssafe - I guess all these people on councils and in various roles merrily waving in unisex toilets would rather not know how many potentially avoidable deaths they’ve contributed to. It’s easier that way I guess.

@dizzydizzydizzy I have examples of deaths in non domestic toilets in the following places. Which location do you think deserves a design where you can instantly see someone is in trouble?
Council office, nightclub, school, pub, council public toilet, leisure centre, supermarket, work office, McDonald’s, gym, festival portaloo, general hospital, cardiac ward in hospital, psychiatric hospital, restaurant, shopping centre, train station, gp surgery….these are a few that I can remember off the top of my head. It’s a nightmare to collate it all as no one else does it. I know it’s one person every 5 to 6 months on average in a station toilet because British Transport Police do collect data.

Then there’s the list of toilet locations for sexual assaults which can be verified by court records for the women and children (and occasional men) that do report. It also shows how design matters and how incidents can be thwarted by other members of the public. I wrote a report in April about the evidence I have. Since then I know already add two more men that have been found guilty of attacking young women. There’s probably more but I haven’t searched as much recently.

Now of course some places only have room for one toilet so that’s got to be a universal design. But for other places, single sex cubicles leading on to single sex washrooms should be prioritised for health and safety.

I realise I am repeating myself and you are not prepared to listen to real evidence. But hopefully this thread with give Bristol City Council some information to reflect on if they really do want to reduce VAWG. Toilets and changing rooms are vulnerable places. With toilets, they are designed for health and safety and to mitigate men’s behaviour. There are laws, building control, regulation and legislation on toilets with that in mind. That’s a hell of a lot they are up against if they want to override who is allowed in single sex toilets.

Yes I agree. Same for male cleaners and young boys in the womens toilets. It’s for reasons of health and safety.

It’s also common sense but the ‘whataboutery’ is not an excuse to make everything into mixed sex rooms which is the only solution otherwise.

Of course, male people can enter female single sex provisions with warnings and announcements such as a sign put out as a warning.

Why is there this distraction about first aid responders 'having' to be single sex in a first responder situation in a leisure centre? Obviously, it would be an ideal, however, it seems to be being used as an argument for all mixed sex provision and it is a very weak one.

If we are talking about numbers of toilet units there’s specific calculations. For the same number of women and men users, to achieve equality there should be twice as many female units as male units (male units count urinals and cubicles the same, though there must be a certain number of cubicles available).
If for any reason you had all universal designs, you would need 25% more toilet units than single sex cubicles in single sex washrooms. This is because of the extra time within the universal compartment as all the activity takes place inside that, lengthening the queues.

oh dear. You are making things up.

edit: replied to wrong post of yours. You’ve got several on the go but I don’t think you ever replied to mine last time.

The only council toilets I can think of having attendants are in London around Westminster. It’s too expensive.

Councils are under no obligation to provide toilets to the public. Most have disappeared due to the reasons your stories are about - sex and drugs (and vandalism). In seaside towns I you are more likely to have them.

‘I don't know who is supervising toilets, there was noone supervising them here’.
We all act as unofficial attendants to the other toilet users - if the design allows us to. Most people are good people. If you saw someone was on the floor of a toilet cubicle, or a struggle within it, you would raise the alarm. But you need to know someone is in trouble.

‘You can walk past closed cubicles and have no idea who is in there, might be someone like me, might be someone who needs money (perhaps another addict) waiting to rob me’.
Agree. You don’t even know how many people are in there. Privacy is a safety problem that’s why cubicles should rest in the open position and have door gaps. This also ensures you have an idea who is in the room with you, particularly when you exit.

‘It could be a man or a woman as noone is supervising who goes in there.’
Yes. This is a problem when it is mixed sex. I think many women would enter and quickly exit before using the female toilets if they were on their own and a man was in there, as good men stay out. This code, regulations and legislation and the Supreme Court verdict give women confidence in that choice.

‘I'm not saying it is perfect but using them I feel safer.’
It is extremely difficult to design safe public toilets. That’s why there is a specific section in the Sexual Offences Act about toilets and one reason cubicles have door gaps. What is of relevance to why your preference feels safe is you are not on your own when you are using these private toilet rooms. Your husband, someone you can trust, is there outside and he knows you are in there. They are in busy places. Two reasons the situation is safer for you.

Single sex toilet cubicles in a single sex environment are the only ones where the door and partitions can finish a max 15cm above floor level and where there can be space above the door and partitions. This is for ventilation, hygiene, supervision and prevention of misuse. These advantages are stated in many design documents.

Privacy overrides health and safety design advantages in mixed sex designs.

You, like me, have used accessible (disabled) toilets. They don’t have the advantages of door gaps either. I would like there to be additional accessible toilets within the single sex suite so that non ambulant people could be included. It would also help parents with pushchairs. That would free up the mixed sex accessible toilet for those that need that design. That should always be in a place that can be monitored as much as possible.

I hope someone from Bristol Council is looking at this thread and can see why designs matter for safeguarding. You can’t just stick a different pictogram over male or female toilets - a cubicle has to be leading out into a single sex environment. The design and location has to be thought out very carefully to serve the needs of more vulnerable users (lone women, children and the medically vulnerable). Recently in busy council offices it took six days before they realised someone had had a medical emergency in a toilet. That is very relevant to this thread. The cleaners thought the toilet was out of use.

Schools have discovered too late that mixed sex designs don’t work, hence a new market was established in expensive high-tech voice activated alarms specifically designed for their ‘gender-neutral’ private cubicles. It is thanks to a lot of hard work from many people interested in health and safety, that these designs are no longer allowed.

Perhaps you are the one missing the point.

All risk assessments for toilet requirements should have as a high priority that issue of preventing deaths or serious health complications due to collapsing in a cubicle. This is where having gaps that allow quick assessment by users that someone is in danger is very important. In toilets for those with disabilities, there is alarm pulls etc.

This is one of the most basic and fundamental issues for risk assessment. It is also the reason for keeping single sex provisions and gaps under doors.

You’re also missing my point - there is no single right or wrong answer because the hazards and risks in every single place are going to be different.

I’d say that the hazard and risk associated with collapsing behind a full height door during a medical episode is pretty similar in every situation.

I guess the only variable might be whether it takes a couple of hours to notice a unit occupied for an abnormal amount of time in a busy location or whether it is only discovered by a cleaner when the building is closed after hours or whether it is a quiet corridor in a 24 hour building like a hospital where a cleaner will just skip and occupied room and only realise there is a problem days later. I think this extremely tragic situation has occurred already.

I think if we need to balance needs and requirements, the safety aspect that could literally save a life should be top of the list?

I haven’t seen any posts that demonstrate clearly that the costs of a mixed sex changing village are less overall than single sex provision. Can you share your evidence please?

Surely cleaning a standard single sex community al changing room with some cubicles is quicker than cleaning an entire changing village of mixed sex cubicles?

There is a fixed number of required fixtures and fittings which is tied to number of users so no economies of scale there.

Then there is the increased cost of erecting and maintaining an all cubicle provision - repairing locks, filling drilled holes etc.

Where are the direct savings?

Then you have staff time taken up by dealing with customer complaints about voyeurism, sexual assault, flashing etc and in extreme cases time as a witness in court cases etc. Shutting down the facility to sweep for spy cameras etc These incidents are almost all in mixed sex changing villages. Hardly any in single sex changing.

There is a very good reason why some police forces have objected to mixed sex changing villages - it increases their workload.

Out of interest, how would you propose to balance the highest level of safety (gaps under or over the doors) with the need to prevent voyeurism (mostly done by putting a camera over or under the door)?

My point was in response to what you were talking about. None of what you say above discounts it - the reasonable safety standard, the costs etc. - as these are implicitly addressed in what I write about patterns.

Your reasonable safety standard is surely best assessed based on extensive research - hence my faith in Keeptoiletssafe judgement on what's reasonable.

I'd also suggest it's not insignificant that value for money - costs - continues to be assessed through a lens which tends to undervalue women's dignity and safety.

In short, though, all of these are judgement calls. Your own above seem to be based on the personal (eg. your ref. to night clubs, anecdotal experience), and this is totally valid - we all have our own opinions. But I'd value data collection and associated patterns above this in agreeing overarching standards. The post above yours highlights the importance of these, and how easily they can be dismissed in a sexist society.

I also think the fact that changing rooms have long been single sex, with unisex only a recent development, supports what I regrettably see in arguments for "reasonably" safe unisex facilities: economising at the potentially life-changing expense (attacks and hidden cameras) of women and girls.

I was talking about leisure centre changing rooms, which these days are usually unisex. It is perfectly possible to build them to a reasonable safety standard. We can of course insist that they have separate male, female, family and disabled changing but only if we want to pay more (if you don’t understand why that costs more, read my PPs).

Night club loos would be a very different proposition. I definitely would not want them unisex.

It's awful.

On another thread, there's discussion of the decision to omit women from Scottish hate crime protections. If you don't track it, you can pretend not to see it - and you can deny patterns which, if applied in policy, would make an immeasurable difference to safety (or cleanliness etc.)

I’m not sure if this has been posted on this or another thread but it came up on my X account and highlights how little one particular council knew about what was going on regarding mixed sex provision.

I've not followed this thread closely, but this feels a bit like the "sex isn't binary, cos intersex" argument. It confuses stating the painfully obvious (of course there are exceptions to rules) and what can logically be extrapolated from this (no, sex is still binary).

I mean, there will always be exceptions to everything - of course there will (except in pure maths? maybe even in pure maths?) There are also patterns and averages and norms. And the sheer weight of these supports Toilets' and others' arguments.

To continually come back with a "Yes, but in this case or that case..." does feel a bit like missing the point. Sometimes - often - we generalise for society to function. Here, the generalisations would minimise risk overall - do more good than harm.

Keeptoiletssafe will be more than aware of your exceptions - I mean, they're kind of self-evident. Her and others' point is that they don't come close to outweighing the norms described and the implications of those norms.

You’re also missing my point - there is no single right or wrong answer because the hazards and risks in every single place are going to be different.

Swimming pools are very obviously an example of a type of venue where it would be normal for people to turn up alone. So, the swimming pool has to do their risk assessment accordingly. There are so many factors to consider, far more than the few examples I have given. They were just examples and probably not even the most important factors.

Yes, most of them are tiny.

in this case it is much more likely to be noticed if it is a place where people go with groups of friends

Too bad if you're the autistic swimmer turning up on his or her own...

Is the organization more concerned about filming under cubicle doors or people collapsing and going unnoticed?

Any answer other than "preventing premature deaths" is the wrong one.

Many trans identified females adopt a gait that reminds me of Kevin and Perry. I tower above most of those I am around and I have much broader shoulders. I have short hair, don’t wear jewellery or make up, nor feminine coded clothes. Quite a few find this confronting and challenging.

I live in a seaside town. DH is disabled so we will often walk, or he might be in mobility scooter, late evening. The old toilet blocks were along the proms at different beaches. They are quiet at night and few people about. I've walked into them and seen two or three addicts injecting drugs, they can be aggressive as they don't want you in there. You can walk past closed cubicles and have no idea who is in there, might be someone like me, might be someone who needs money (perhaps another addict) waiting to rob me. It could be a man or a woman as noone is supervising who goes in there. The new toilets are in places like a busier pavement or edge of busy car park, if the doors swing open you can see it isn't occupied. I'm not saying it is perfect but using them I feel safer.

The doors do open after a certain time unless you request more time. I've never used it but there is an emergency button, not sure what happens.

I don't know who is supervising toilets, there was noone supervising them here. I went swimming today, no one was supervising the changing room although one pool I use has what I think is a good idea. There is a typical changing room with cubicles, lockers, mirrors, hairdryers etc but the difference is the wall separating the changing room from the pool is about waist high and the lifeguard is sitting on their raised chair more or less halfway along so while right by the wall. they aren't actually supervising but they can hear if something is going on. I think that's quite a cost effective way of giving confidence that someone might hear you if something happened particularly at quiet times which feels more risky times. Personally I think changing rooms can be a dangerous place when unsupervised, which seems the norm where I swim, particularly at quiet times. I often swim early and can be the only person in the changing room.

The problems of those old toilet blocks could be solved if they were staffed. Don't know how much money your council has but I dont think my council could afford that. Might be because we have a decent amount of public toilets probably because of holiday makers and the are open for about 16 to 18 hours a day so you'd need two supervising 7 days a week. I can't see it happening. I think staffing would be over a million a year which they just don't have. Tx

Having seen a fair few TiFs in the last few days

the moment they move
they are clearly females with stubbly beards and buzz cuts
the gestures and the mannerisms remain female
as does the gait

interestingly most of the ones I saw were under 5'3"
the TiMs around them towered over them

Afaik the SC said that transmen (i.e. women) who 'pass' as men may be debarred from SSS for women because of their appearance - since it might cause alarm. (This get-out was not given to TiMs.)

It’s good you are thinking about location.

There would no longer be single sex washrooms with toilet cubicles leading off if men and women (all genders together) were allowed to use every toilet.

The single sex washroom/ open changing room/ swimming pool with attendant does the same job - it acts as natural supervision in case of misuse or an emergency in the cubicle. In this way single sex toilets prevent misuse happening in the first place.

Mixed sex toilet designs have to be private and self contained with the facilities inside, including the accessible. They need to be leading out on to busy areas but this doesn’t protect the occupant. Radar keys have been an attempt to stop misuse for accessible ones. Mixed sex toilets need to have extra safety measures in case people are trapped, overdose/ have a medical emergency etc like automatic door unlocks. The doors are temperamental, prone to being vandalised and expensive. They are difficult to ventilate and keep clean. Unisex toilets are scientifically proven to contain more pathogens. Various weird and wonderful contraptions have been tried to emulate the simple single sex design such as automated cleaning, weighted floors to assess occupancy numbers, voice activated alarms, opaque glass that goes clear.

It’s good you recognise that single sex toilet blocks and mixed sex toilet designs are very different. In England, cubicles can only lead out in to single sex accommodation to adhere to building regs.

The old accessible toilets you discuss are an unregulated design.

The healthiest and safest designs are a specific design of single sex toilet cubicle that has to be in a single sex environment. Of course location matters too. It sounds like that old toilet block was in the wrong location. However if you are in a unisex toilet and for some reason you are in trouble, it doesn’t matter if it’s in a really busy place, no one will know.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-stuck-inside-locked-public-35746932