Is it discrimination against disabled people and women to change single sex toilets to mix sexed toilets in public buildings and entertainment venues?
The reason my Dd was able to go to school is that she was ‘visible’ if she had a seizure. In her SEND educational plan it specifically said she should not be directed to the disabled toilet as it was not suitable for her needs. The girls toilets doors had gaps and were easy to access (climb over if she was collapsed) as you would be able to tell as you could see her on the floor. The ‘disorientation but feeling ill’ aura before a seizure meant she would not be able to pull a cord.
If the school had made the toilets mixed sex - with the full length doors that go with that - then she wouldn’t have been safe at school unless someone accompanied her into her toilet cubicle each time she felt ill. That would have required more resources than a mainstream state school had. As the single sex toilets were accessible for her, and she’s incredibly bright, she completed school with the highest grades.
Epilepsy affects 1 in 106 people. We had no warning that Dd was about to have her first ever seizure (as a teenager). It could have happened at school.
Then there’s all the other conditions. Strokes, heart attacks, hypos, brain haemorrhages, miscarriages. For example, actress Emilia Clarke felt ill during a gym session and went to the toilet as she was violently sick (as you do when you are ill). A woman in the next cubicle asked her if she was alright and then got her out and called an ambulance. I have no idea of the set up of the toilets she collapsed in. But if the actress had been on her own and then collapsed, she would have been visible to anyone entering the toilet block if the cubicles had door gaps at the bottom.
Gaps in toilet doors are such a simple thing that keep medically vulnerable people safe. I contacted a toilet manufacturer of some new swanky mixed sex (floor-to-ceiling-door) toilets in a theatre we were going to. They admitted there was no easy way to get into the toilets if someone was collapsed against the (inward opening)door. No one had asked them that before! They said there is a special tool to take away the panelling but admitted theatre staff wouldn’t know how to use it but there’s a half hour tutorial on YouTube I could access. No thanks.
Surely it is disability discrimination too, to change once safer toilet blocks into more dangerous non-visible cubicles?
This also applies to children in schools. In 2015/2016 in was noted that one pupil each school day was raped inside a British school (source: BBC report about a Parliamentary session). Safeguarding relies on visibility. Numerous studies have all concluded mix sex toilets are more dangerous for females. Surely having an increase in mixed sex cubicles in secondary schools is going to increase the risk? It appears schools have not thought this through.
From a legal point of view I was wondering what could be done? This is because I filled out a government toilet consultation (2023) but only as a private individual and I doubt my opinion will be noted. The drafters have obviously spent lots of time on this. But one of the appendices was talking about a fully enclosed universal toilet (full height door, no gaps) that was promoted as a preferred design for both mix sex and single sex toilets. They even said this would be good for disabled people (?!?). This would be a really bad idea if the door gaps were scrapped in laws. It’s a backwards step for everyone- anyone could collapse in a toilet. The drafters obviously have not had my life experience as the risks are glaringly obvious.
Risks to consider more likely to happen in private cubicles: drug taking, self-harm, sexual assaults, not being seen in the cubicle in the event you collapse, not being able to see out of the cubicle if there is a threat outside, not being able to see if anyone is in the locked cubicle in the event of a building evacuation.
What happens if the government decide that a ‘universal toilet’ design with a full height door is the way to go? Can it be looked at legally on the grounds of discrimination at this stage before it is ‘set in stone’? I don’t feel like taking on the government (too worn out!) but not sure how to get my views across.
Any thoughts from anyone in the legal profession? I didn’t imagine my cause would be toilet door gaps but I have the most important reason to champion this.