Open City wants to destroy single-sex facilities for women in London

[DropDTuning]

I have emailed them in response to this in their latest newsletter. Here is my email and the articles they linked to. I welcome anyone else writing to them. The email address is [removed by MNHQ at OPs request]

Dear Open House

After many years of supporting you, including attending Open House events since 2008 along with my children, I would like to unsubscribe from your newsletter and register how appalled I am by your attempt to destroy the provision of single-sex facilities for women and girls. Marianna Janowicz's appalling article, that you linked to supportively in your latest email newsletter, states that:

"Every household in the country has a gender neutral toilet in their own home for use by family members and guests without any segregation, so the idea that gender neutral loos are unusual is farcical."

This is itself utterly farcical. Janowicz appears to have missed the painfully obvious point that we don't let any and all random strangers in off the street to use the toilets in our homes. The dishonesty and ridiculousness of this non-argument is absolutely insulting.

I suppose Janowicz also thinks it is 'farcical' to have locks on our front doors - after all, we all have doors that don't lock inside our homes, don't we? And it's 'farcical' to have security on the doors of schools, synagogues, mosques, hospitals, bars - after all, none of us have security guards outside our bedrooms or kitchens, do we?

What a pathetic and stupid argument.

Women and girls (as well as men and boys) are entitled to single-sex provision under the Equality Act. By attempting to remove this provision, you are not only promoting breaking the law, but you are promoting discrimination against disabled people, and women and girls from minority ethnic or religious groups, many of whom are unable to use facilities shared with the opposite sex. You are also promoting the endangerment of all women's and girls' safety, privacy and dignity.

You state in your support for this awful proposal:

"We believe that London’s spectacular variety of music, food, culture, architecture and civic life is enriched by the diverse nationalities, languages, sexualities, faiths, and ethnicities of the people who call our capital home. "

And yet you are blatantly ignoring the rights and opportunities, dignity and safety, of women of diverse faiths and ethnicities who will simply not be able to use these facilities at all if single-sex facilities are removed.

You should be ashamed of promoting this. It could not be further from the genuine promotion of an 'open city'. You are making the city less equitable, less accessible, and less welcoming.

I could have simply unsubscribed from your newsletter and stopped supporting your events, but I wanted you and your partners to be aware of the consequences of your reckless lack of care for women and girls, and for your promotion of the frankly insulting, dangerous and stupid argument in Janowicz's awful piece.

Yours faithfully

Links are:
open-city.org.uk/blog/learning-from-londons-lack-of-lockdown-loos
open-city.org.uk/blog/public-toilets-statement

Apparently the consultation ends on Friday. I'm not sure where the details of the consultation are though.

This is why people are so desperate to replace 'sex' with 'gender' in The Equality Act.
If enough people ignore the law it gives them an excuse to say it doesnt work and scrap it, then none of us are protected.

isn't that article calling for more provision of self contained floor to ceiling cubicles with sinks? as long as they also have adequate baby changing facilities, I can't see what's so disastrous about that? it would solve the problem of women queuing round the block while men waltz in and out, solve the problem of people with hidden disabilities getting told off for using disabled toilets and feeling like they have to justify themselves, solve the problem of parents out and about with opposite sex children who are too old to go in opposite sex facilities but too young or otherwise unable to go into a public loo unsupervised, and solve the problem of able bodied people who have prams etc with them using disabled toilets. And trans people are here to stay whether you like it or not, and they'd be able to just go to the toilet without encountering harassment from blokes in male facilities or upsetting women who don't want them in female facilities.

Consultation: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence

The above is rather sparse if this is the consulation.

It’s all well and good calling for facilities to be made mixed sex with enclosed hand wash basins etc but that is quite space hungry and inefficient so if they actually want more provision for the general population as they seem to claim then multiple cubicles in a single sex room with shared hand wash would be much more efficient.

It appears that their proposal will reduce the overall profit because a tiny minority of people don’t wish to use the toilets allocated for their sex.

I am aware of no evidence that would demonstrate why this is justified- is anyone else?

I am also checking concerned as they seem to be trying to compare women who suffered from the ‘urinary leash’ and had to fight for any provision with a group of people that have allocated provision but don’t wish to use it.

I have still not seen any evidence that shows that trans people (mtf) are in any more danger in the men’s toilets than any other vulnerable male group.

Not sure that males using a cubicle instead of a urinal is going to reduce waiting times and queues for women. Will they even close the door behind them? Women using neutral facilities in the civil service report this is an issue.
Also, I do not want to be attending to menstrual hygiene around males.
Finally, will voyeurism increase?

@MadameButterface

isn't that article calling for more provision of self contained floor to ceiling cubicles with sinks? as long as they also have adequate baby changing facilities, I can't see what's so disastrous about that? it would solve the problem of women queuing round the block while men waltz in and out, solve the problem of people with hidden disabilities getting told off for using disabled toilets and feeling like they have to justify themselves, solve the problem of parents out and about with opposite sex children who are too old to go in opposite sex facilities but too young or otherwise unable to go into a public loo unsupervised, and solve the problem of able bodied people who have prams etc with them using disabled toilets. And trans people are here to stay whether you like it or not, and they'd be able to just go to the toilet without encountering harassment from blokes in male facilities or upsetting women who don't want them in female facilities.

Who is paying for this?

who pays for any public toilets? I thought the article was quite good, lockdown really has shown up a lack of public toilet provision. we do need more, they benefit everyone. in normal times there's usually a bunfight a week on here about prams in disabled toilets or 10 year old boys in the ladies' or 'an elderly woman told me I don't look disabled'.

... and on those threads, usually the consensus is that we need more accessible enclosed single unit toilets.

The argument that we don't have sex segregated toilets at home so why do we need them in public is one of the most fucking mind numbingly stupid arguments I have ever heard. On anything. Ever.

Who says that thinking 'yep, Ive got em there'.....

I can't see any evidence that the article is proposing self contained rooms with sinks. It is just asking for gender neutral toilets. Often, these are repurposed women's toilets.

Can you provide a link?

And as a poster said the other day, for her, the general area of a women's toilet is useful for asking other women for help with her veil. Single rooms doesn't allow for this.

Also gender neutral toilets are often gross, men pee all over the floor. I would much rather have the double door than a door that opens straight out.

Are people emailing to ask for guidance on what "technical comments" are and when this is likely to be open for public consultation?

The argument that we don't have sex segregated toilets at home so why do we need them in public is one of the most fucking mind numbingly stupid arguments I have ever heard. On anything. Ever.

This.

Men often don't shut doors in mixed sex toilets. No thanks.

I used the ones at the bridge theatre, obviously a very naice venue, all I could hear were embarrassed teenage boys and their shouty mothers saying 'it's fine darling, it's gender neutral'

@Clymene, from the article in the first link op posted:

"In a project titled 'Stalled' Sanders suggests design solutions in order to better welcome non-heteronormative and non-binary people to public toilets. In it, he calls for the creation of ‘all-gender’ facilities with independent cubicles, each containing a WC and their own sink. "

Also I know the safety angle is unpopular but aside from all the flashers and perves, what about pubs and nightclubs. How many of us have never seen a woman crying /hiding in the toilets from an aggressive man, or even hid in them to escape an over - keen man.

I worked in a uni that had brand new self contained loos in single units. The uni spent a fortune, they were gorgeous.

And covered in piss.

They had a cleaner permanently on the block but you'd have to check several loos to find one that you could sit on.

Every household in the country has a gender neutral toilet in their own home for use by family members and guests without any segregation, so the idea that gender neutral loos are unusual is farcical.

They seem a bit confused about the difference between public and private space.

However, if they are happy for anyone to wander of the street and into their bathrooms, would be more public spirited if they could advertise their addresses?

Also I know the safety angle is unpopular but aside from all the flashers and perves, what about pubs and nightclubs. How many of us have never seen a woman crying /hiding in the toilets from an aggressive man, or even hid in them to escape an over - keen man.

I agree. It would be really intimidating for most women and girls to be alone in the loos with a load of drunk blokes. Something people like Butterface never trouble themselves to consider.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The argument that we don't have sex segregated toilets at home so why do we need them in public is one of the most fucking mind numbingly stupid arguments I have ever heard. On anything. Ever.

This.

YES. THIS.

SO UTTERLY STUPID.

isn't that article calling for more provision of self contained floor to ceiling cubicles with sinks?

Given their lack of understanding of the difference between a public space and somebody's home, I suspect no.

@BarbaraofKent

The argument that we don't have sex segregated toilets at home so why do we need them in public is one of the most fucking mind numbingly stupid arguments I have ever heard. On anything. Ever.

Who says that thinking 'yep, Ive got em there'.....

Yes, one can only assume they are either trolling or the dumbest person going. And I wonder, when they go to the loos in a bar or restaurant, do they leave their handbag or wallet on the table, like they would at home?

Floor to ceiling cubicles have their own dangers to women and children, let’s not forget about that.

We need separate spaces. For good reason.

@MadameButterface

who pays for any public toilets? I thought the article was quite good, lockdown really has shown up a lack of public toilet provision. we do need more, they benefit everyone. in normal times there's usually a bunfight a week on here about prams in disabled toilets or 10 year old boys in the ladies' or 'an elderly woman told me I don't look disabled'.

There is a huge lack of accessible toilet provision.

That won't be increased by able bodied people each being given a little room with a sink. That just gives some people far more than they need and some people far less.

I agree that structural changes are necessary, but proposals need to be realistic to be helpful.