Unisex toilets in new office - dread going into work

[SocialMol]

The company I work for moved to a new office a few weeks ago. It is brand new and shared 50/50 with another company. We have our own side of the floor, key card protected so completely separate.

However, the toilets are in the middle of the block so are shared with the other company. These are unisex - several cubicles with shared area for sinks/dryers etc.

The other company is a sales one (they run a call centre there) and the demographic of their workforce is mainly young men in their 20’s.

There have been several instances of inappropriate comments made to staff in the toilets. Crass stuff like ‘give that cubicle 5 minutes’ to cruder comments directed at or about women - the men will often be talking about their own colleagues in a derogatory way in front of us.

The final straw for me was this afternoon when I walked out of a cubicle and a spotty young lad said he will ‘join me next time’ 😷

Our company are aware of our concerns but said there’s nothing they can do, as the toilets are designed to be ‘inclusive’ and similar to the other modern office blocks they viewed.

I don’t really know what I’m looking for by posting this to be honest, just wanted to know if anyone else finds this sort of set up completely ridiculous?

This attitude can jog right off. We have moved on decades passed this, what was acceptable then isn't now and isn't relevant to this conversation.
A lot of women are nervous in this situation and are entitled to be when some men can be such twats.

The toilets aren’t the issue here, the men are

Cool, let's be like America and have guns because guns aren't the problem, people are.

9 pages on and the OP hasn't been back to clarify. I'm wondering if the initial description of the facilities perhaps isn't quite as people are supposing?

As someone who grew up in the 70s, there was the natural consequence getting punched by the girl's brother, dad, uncle, cousin etc. We can't do that anymore.

No-one should have to put up with sexual harrasment in the workplace. That's what this is. OP, as said, take this further and don't back down.

Ok thank you.

While I didn’t specifically use the phrase ‘stranger rapes and sexual assaults’ which I think the 50:50 number refers to, I don’t feel the need to differentiate in this case. Sexual assault is a very serious crime for women and while it could include slightly less ‘invasive’ attacks like inappropriate touching, afaik it also includes penetration as long as it is not with a penis.

I think my point on PPs airy dismissal of this still stands.

Start making formal complaints of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. Encourage anyone else experiencing the same unacceptable behaviour to do the same. Your workplace owes you a duty of care to provide a safe workplace. Their hands are not tied. They can contact the other business and report the behaviour and seek resolution.

Seems somewhat unlikely that anyone would go to all the major expense of building new offices that do not comply with the workplace regulations, or indeed that planning authorities would allow them to. Is this a "Wind them up and watch them go" thread?

Just to add, you need to understand, known men are not 'a demographic'. Known men simply describes their relationship to the victim, not the societal group they belong to. Men who harm women can be found in every demographic. The reasons the figures for domestic abuse are so high isn't because the abusers are in a special group called 'known men', it's down to the increased opportunity for an abuser to abuse and the increased vulnerability of the women in the domestic setting. Increase male opportunity and increase female vulnerability in any setting and abuse stats will rise for that setting.

It became quite a big thing with new offices in order to appease trans people. A lot of schools have done the same thing and are now backtracking due to an uptick in sexual assaults and complaints.

I assume you are referring to a born female ‘trans’ (who may identify as a man or ‘non binary) ? They obviously pose very little risk to safety and obviously privacy as they are female.

Men who identify as women however ARE a problem. Quite a proportion of trans identifying males are heterosexual and have a sexual fetish (which many openly talk about) for themselves as women.

Some are homosexual and it is not fetish driven but from their posts on social media, these ‘trans’ seem more likely to use the mens toilets with no issues.

You may be happy putting yourself at risk of sexual assault or being part of a man’s sexual fetish (social media posts show that some like to listen to women pee, photograph us or steal used sanitary items) but I think most women wouldn’t.

OP, I'm sure it's already been said but cubicles opening in to a room with shared sinks etc aren't legal.

The whoe shebang - loo, sink, sanitary bin needs to be inside a cubicle that is concealed on all sides - floor to ceiling and open onto a public concourse to prevent anyone from being in a separate room behind a closed door with anyone else.

I agre it’s a fundamental design flaw but an employer’s responsibility to protect against sexual harassment in the workplace is a much easier way for the OP to stop this behaviour happening. There’s plenty of tribunals that have set a precedence around that whereas there’s very few, if any, solely about toilet provision given the guidance is so new.

I originally had “for the sake of resolving this” before I said the toilets weren’t the issue but took it out, I probably should have left in so it was clear I was being pragmatic rather than advocating for the current set up.

A very good point. The claim about ‘known men’ is so thought terminating. It has obviously terminated thinking for a few on this thread.

I have worked for a least thirty years where the toilets have been used by either gender and never had a problem with other users. The big problem is not having enough (two cubicles for about thirty people which is probably illegal) but there are alternatives again either gender just up the corridor.
Perhaps it is the type of person I work with

Why do you think that?

This set up has been rolled out in schools and many workplaces across the country.

I’d be delighted if it wasn’t true but sadly this is very likely to be.

I would feel uncomfortable using these toilets. Ten or so years ago, all the desks belonging to women in our workplace had to be checked underneath for hidden cameras. A male member of staff had placed one under the desk of a young woman who worked there. I admit it's hardly commonplace but it's ingrained on my consciousness now and I would just have to check every time I went in there!

I'm sure someone will have shared this with you already, OP - I'm not going to read the full thread as I've no time - but my understanding is that this is illegal: workplaces are obliged to provide single sex toilets, and the recent Supreme Court judgement has confirmed (as if this ever should have been required) that single sex means, well, single sex.

To the poster on p1 saying to "get over it" - and the inevitable others who I'm sure will have intervened in subsequent pages - have some insight, empathy and common sense. Stats unambiguously show women are substantially less safe in mixed-sex toilets in any context.

Here's a thought experiment for you.

Transfer OP's situation to any other protected demographic: a person of colour, disabled individual or gay man, for example. A situation has been created in which they're facing regular and sometimes intimidating verbal abuse related to their respective protected characteristic. Think about the language that would involve. Notice how unacceptable it (hopefully!) feels even to think those words as a thought experiment. And think about how, 50 years ago, many people dismissed any concern about such abuse as unjustified.

Now think about how women are facing this and a measurable impact on their physical safety.

What makes women's rights so very different?

Your answer is proof that this is an issue.

If you think, "Nothing. Nothing does," you're right.

If, conversely, you default to a string of unthinking justifications - think back to those justifications against racism and ableism and homophobia of yesteryear, and be honest about how they sound now. Do they hold up? Do your reasons now hold up? And perhaps look at yourself very hard in the mirror.

(PS If your answer was "trans rights" and "inclusion", advocate for mixed-sex spaces for all trans people and their allies who are indifferent to these, such as yourself. Campaign for women to have the right to choose whether they share their spaces with males. If you give them the opportunity to use these, and the majority embrace it - great, problem solved! No exposure for trans individuals, and single sex spaces for women who feel vulnerable with strange males. If women, given the choice to consent to mix-space spaces don't consent to use it? Well, right there is your evidence that there is a clash of rights. And this needs consideration, and care. But not an indifferent, wholesale replacement of women's rights with a "more important" demographic's).

Funny that you think that when the building industry continue to aim to save as much money as possible in all areas from design to fitout.

Where the LAs were getting brownie points to train their staff to be inclusive and progressive and get ahead of the law when it came to mixed sex toilets.

Boys in schools have this attitude. These boys in this article grow into these young men.

You do realise ‘lockable’ does not mean secure don’t you? You have got to be able to quickly open up a toilet cubicle from the outside (with the mechanism so that the door can change to go outwards) for building regs. This is because so many people collapse in toilets eg 11% of cardiac arrests happen on the loo. Unisex toilets have to be private and resist the passage of sound. Thats why similar designs have been nicknamed ‘rape cubicles’ in schools.

Cleaning wise, it is medically proven that unisex toilets have the greatest number of pathogens in them too. The lack of ventilation concentrates them and they are less easy to clean because of the privacy partitions and door. The concealed unit is not good for health and safety for medically vulnerable people, women and girls.

I believe it is a reasonable adjustment for people with invisible disabilities such as epilepsy, diabetes, asthma, heart conditions, to have a safe toilet - which means a single sex toilet with door gaps to ensure quick detection if you collapse.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/drug-dealing-drinking-dirt-problems-28517175

you need to put your concerns in writing and go via HR. There’s no way “nothing can be done”. They will be in serious trouble if they don’t make adjustments.

Cos no man would ever rape or assault a woman window they?!

And your policy must be that you work somewhere that is compliant with the law and doesn't put you at risk of being sexually harassed or assaulted.

Your offices arbitrary statistics about office attendance are putting you at risk of danger, when there's an acceptable and safe workplace for you at home.

Meanwhile if they insist on attendance they must be compliant with the law, they cannot operate a business that isn't compliant with the law and simply stating their hands are tied is not a get out of jail free card.

There are some posters who are either bots, Russian trolls or other trolls or really thick women on here who think the behaviour OP has described is acceptable, what fresh hell is this that people are saying it's ok ?

Grenfell was meant to be built according to building regs as well

Also these men's behaviour needs to be reported to HR