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

@TheignT However, you didn’t disappear as you replied to me at 09.52 after I asked you about these Victorian cubicles that you implied were completely private down to the floor and too high to film over. These are unusual in wet areas because of the chlorine and water rotting the bottom of the partitions and doors. In particular, a big problem is the door expands and then jams.

I can see how walls and a drainage channel in front could work better. The walls would have to be tall as Victorians wouldn’t have factored in mobile phone cameras.

Talking of Victorian design, they built some beautiful toilet blocks that resembled cottages, which is where the term cottaging comes from. Most of these toilets have closed down now because of misuse.

I think you are making things up, well I know you are. Where have I tried to stop women being safe from being filmed by predatory men?

Try reading what I actually said before jumping to such accusations.

I said:

You appear to be the exception but I think most would prefer to minimise their risk of being filmed or spied on by predatory men.

This means that I think most would rather choose single sex facilities. Your repeated references to the apparently mixed sex Victorian poolside changing cubicles as your gold standard implies that you don’t value single sex.

You've never been sexually assaulted by a woman so you don't think that matters but it does to some of us.

What a personal and rather bold claim when you have literally no idea.

I have seen women parading around naked in open plan changing rooms. It is a minority of women but they exist.

So because, in the few times you have ventured outside of your favoured Victorian baths, you have seen a ‘minority of naked women parading around’ and you are personally perturbed by this and don’t do the usual thing of focusing on your own changing and ignoring the women in the room, you are demands that if we are to have single sex facilities they MUST be all cubicles even though this is clearly less space efficient and more expensive to run than a communal area with some cubicles?

My feelings and the feelings of other women who want privacy don't matter to you, you just want a situation that suits you. How selfish.

What a weird accusation. The usual arrangement for single sex changing is a communal area with some cubicles. I made the observation that that is suitable and satisfactory for the majority of women. It is you that are making the exceptional demand based on an implausible claim.

My only question is ‘why’? What are you asking for and do you think that is achievable in a way that satisfies the needs of the majority in a way that is reasonable for service providers?

Except that nobody has said that. I’m really confused as to what you’re arguing about.

I learned to swim at Moseley Baths, which were set up as TheignT describes.

They were fabulous - reopened after their closure & a long campaign but now seem to have lost the viewing gallery & Victorian cubicles.

A couple of reasons why the set up probably wouldn’t work now:
• there were never quite enough cubicles at busy times. Each cubicle could hold two kids or an adult & child, but two large adults would find it a squeeze, & of course people don’t always go swimming neatly in single sex pairs. So if you went at a busy time, you’d have to use a cubicle that someone else had already left their stuff in (it was considered polite to put your clothes in a bag & hang it from a hook rather than leaving everything strewed about, for this reason). Occasionally you’d come back to find the other person had gone, & so had your money/watch/shoes. Or you’d both happen to get out of the pool simultaneously & have to stand there dripping & having a polite British argument about who got to get changed first
• the pool is small - my first swimming badges were 10m (width) & 25m (length). Modern pools are maybe 4x that size? So 4x the area, 4x the capacity for swimmers…but not 4x the perimeter, so you’d have even less space to put enough cubicles.

That aside, the baths were/are stunning, & in terms of changing facilities they did provide both individual privacy AND if you collapsed in one, or were up to something nefarious in there, there would be dozens of pairs of eyes including staff noticing a door closed for too long.

But probably not a viable future blueprint for the reasons above.

We actually used to quite often go with swimsuits on under a tracksuit, tbh, especially in the summer holidays when it was basically kid soup & you knew there would be little chance of a cubicle. Not so much fun leaving with wet hair & soggy pants in January.

Thank you for describing that so well.

The only difference where I went was we had plastic tray things to put your stuff in so the cubicles were left empty. The trays went on a shelf thing by the lifeguard station. I have to say although nothing was locked I never lost anything/had it pinched.

I don't swim in the Victorian baths. I did say I moved many miles away and use two local pools. Maybe take your own advice and read posts before getting it wrong.

I value privacy and safety for everyone, not just me.

Very true. When I worked for the police we had a very disgruntled off duty officer bring a prisoner in. He'd tried to proposition him, or whatever happens in these situations and he'd picked the wrong man. It was hard to tell if the officer was more upset about being propositioned or having his day off ruined. I bet the man got one hell of a shock when he realised what he'd done.

Those toilets were closed not long afterwards.

You used to work for the police?

Thats interesting. Have you heard about Design Out Crime Officers?

Yes. That's why I don't like the secluded changing rooms very much and prefer the ones round the pool. I often swim early morning and am first in the changing room. I think if I was attacked no one would hear me or know until the next swimmer arrived. With the round the pool cubicles the lifeguard would almost certainly notice.

What do you think about the resistant-to-sound, floor-to-ceiling toilets?

We have them in my town but I don't know about the resistant to sound bit. I prefer them to the old toilet blocks. They are in very public places and the doors automatically unlock after a certain time. The old blocks were more tucked away and you never knew who was in there (maybe my not feeling safe just because it's women comes into it.) There are fewer toilets though which can be an issue.

They are all accessible which my husband finds useful as he has equal chance of using one as opposed to the old accessible toilets which were always just one toilet and sometimes there's a long wait (no one's fault but some disabilities mean people can be in there a long time). I think they all have baby changing tables as well but I can't swear to that.

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

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.)

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

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

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.

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.

Yes, most of them are tiny.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.