York theatre royal toilets

[pigsknickers]

I visited today and was irritated to find that one of the two women's toilets is now unisex (and yes the men still have two to themselves). Here's the text of the email I've written them; I'm planning to c&p it to any venues I come across who've pulled this stunt from now on. Awaiting waffle bollocks response.

"I visited the theatre today with my mum and two small children, and I want to tell you how appalled we were to find you've designated one of the two female toilet facilities as unisex, while the men still have two single sex facilities. There are so many reasons why we found this to be a misjudged move on your part:

1. Women need more, not fewer public toilets than men. We are often looking after small children or elderly female relatives in the toilets. We need more time and space to deal with menstruation (which we really don't want to do in a shared space with men). Many venues suffer from long queues to use the ladies' as it is. When I visited today, the toilets in question were full of women trying to toilet their children, with men adding to the overcrowding (while there was a men-only facility just next door). Yes, I could have used the women-only toilets upstairs, but with two small children in tow I had neither the time nor the energy to drag them up two flights of stairs.
2. Men's toilets are dirty. Men tell us this all the time; many men take steps to ensure they won't have to use a cubicle while they're out, because men urinate on the seats and floor. This gets worse in venues where alcohol is served.
3. Women need privacy away from men when performing intimate functions. I sometimes have very heavy periods, and do not want to wash blood off my hands while standing next to a man. I don't want a man to overhear me explain to my three year old what a sanitary towel is.
4. Women in states of vulnerability are not safe in shared sex spaces. Your cubicles are not even floor-to-ceiling; you are making it easier for predatory males to intimidate, harass and attack women and girls.
5. Women have fought long and hard for single-sex provision so that they have equal access to public life. Both the WHO and UNICEF emphasise the importance of single-sex toilets in protecting girls in developing countries from rape, and allowing them to participate in public life. Without adequate toilet provision, women and girls in this country too would have their safety and dignity compromised whenever they leave the house. I would be very interested to know what Equality Impact and Risk Assessments were carried out before this change was implemented.
6. It is just not acceptable that men now have access to 2.5 of 4 toilet facilities, while women - who I presume make up at least 50% of your clientele (I would guess more based on today's audience) - only have access to 1.5 of them. I anticipate an explanation that this change was made to make better provision for transgender people, and while this may be a laudable aim, I invite you to consider why it was deemed appropriate to remove a significant proportion of your female customers' toilet provision. This sends a very clear message that you value your female customers less than any other demographic, and for this reason I will not be visiting the Theatre Royal in the foreseeable future."

You might not be able to bold pigsknickers but you do write an exceedingly good letter

I'm from York, I had no idea about this. My best friend is an employee, I'll have to ask her how it's going down.

I have messaged them far less eloquently than you.

It's letters like these that make me wish for a template option on FWR so we could download sterling examples for future use. Cracking letter. Let's hope it is analysed and understood and the points utilised.

Thanks for the support everyone - I must admit I do enjoy cracking out a ranty letter when the opportunity presents itself

Oh well done, they passed you up the chain.

Bloody hell, that’s a good letter. Really good! Will be interesting to see the reply...

Excellent letter. I think you frightened them with that bit about the illegality of allowing men into women's toilets when there are gaps around the doors.
They'll be frantically googling the law and realising they are up shit creek and liable to be sued, all because they stupidly trusted that Stonewall wouldn't deliberately mislead them.

I’m very interested to hear the reply too. Surely they’ll be having a proper discussion about this as you raised so many good points. Well done and thank you.

My dd is getting to the age where she can have little bits of independence like going to the toilet on her own when we’re in a cafe or restaurant. I won’t be allowing it if this is the future of toilets.

Fantastic letter. I don’t want to have to share my toilets with anyone with a penis, regardless of how they identify. No woman should have to.

Oh excellently done! I wish I could write like you!

Keep us posted.

Marvellous letter.

That's a cracking letter. I look forward to hearing how they respond since those points are so straightforward. Bravo!

Well done - really eloquent letter. Nevertheless she persisted...

Another fan of your ranty eloquence. Excellent letter, I hope it gets an equally considered answer.(Doubt it though!)

Interesting timing as the fall off in sales for pantomime which is one of their biggest annual productions has been splattered across the media.

Hi OP

Great letter

A couple of things to keep in mind as you enter into further negotiations:

1. Direct sex discrimination is less favourable treatment on the grounds of sex in comparison with treatment of opposite sex. Women have less toilet provision than men and it’s less accessible. That is on any view less favourable.

1. There is no defence to direct se discrimination.

1. Unisex toilet provision is unacceptable as indirect sex discrimination against women due to increased risks

You are on solid ground with your challenge. Don’t accept excuses or justification - there is no defence to direct discrimination so it cannot be justified.

If that's the case, Herewego, does that mean that if eg a theatre provides MORE toilets for women than for men, on the grounds that women spend more time in the toilet because of menstruation, young children, etc, they are unlawfully discriminating against men?

Very good letter OP.

The tiniest gap will neuter a bold.

so they want to be "inclusive of everyone in our community" but it's fine for us to use the disabled toilet? WTAF??

This is exactly what disabled people said the businesses would do to them if mixed sex facilities were instituted. They were right.

I think they’d be at risk of a claim due to MRAs who will always take exception to anything which improves women lives.

The theatre would have to show that men have not been treated less favourably which they might be able to do by a time and motion study to compare men’s queues against women’s.

Male and female provision is already likely to be different in terms of urinals and stalls so I think that would also help defend a claim.

Thank you for writing on behalf of those of us who are concerned.

Absolutely superb letters @pigsknickers. My dad would have been proud of you!