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.

@Ninkanink

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.

This, 100%. Much easier to be pushed into without anyone noticing or hearing anything than regular segregated toilets.

Hello, please don't use the email address I provided in the first post because it's the wrong organisation. Sorry. I'll ask Mumsnet to delete it.

Cracking letter OP.

Can I highlight this 18 page thread as a resource for why WOMEN ONLY toilets are so important to women at all life stages:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3203454-What-do-you-use-the-womens-toilets-for

Also in latter pages it has links for numerous MN threads on why gender neutral cubicles are terrible for women and not a good alternative to women only spaces

I have read so many thoughtful articles from architects on making inclusive spaces that I know they could easily get this point- they just need to grasp the absolutely key concept that inclusion also includes women

Anyway best of luck let us know how you get on.

A gap at the bottom of the door is a safety measure so if someone collapses (seizure, heart attack etc) then it is more noticeable. If someone is feeling poorly they go to the loo.

Oh weirdly, the first blog post I read wasn't the same one I saw the second time I clicked the link.

The author is comparing apartheid with separate sex facilities.

That's a hard no. She's an idiot and thinking she has a decent argument is idiotic.

I would venture to say that in many homes with more than one bathroom, they are segregated by sex. Mine is.

Thank you @ChattyLion That thread is really useful.

I still need to find a functional email address as the one on their newsletter bounced, and the one I found online unfortunately belongs to an unconnected organisation (oops).

I have, genuinely, helped a woman who was having a miscarriage in some toilets in the park once. I stayed with her until the paramedics came and tried to calm her down. That was traumatic enough (for her obviously, a difficult day for me as well). I cannot imagine what it would have been like for her if there had been men coming in and out of those loos. Regardless of how separate the cubicles were.

@toomanytrees

I would venture to say that in many homes with more than one bathroom, they are segregated by sex. Mine is.

Yup. I live & work overseas on a rather generous housing contract, so my experience is a bit niche given there are 8 toilets on my property...anyway...

Dd1 & I counted it up the other day. Ds has 2 bathrooms for his exclusive use as he has the 'granny flat'. I've got an en-suite. Dds have the family bathroom. There's one downstairs for guests/family/whatever. 2 in the garden - one attached to the girl cave pool house & used by dds & their (female) friends only, one for randoms. Our baowab (live in caretaker/security/handyman) has his own accommodation with, obviously, a bathroom.

So that's 3 exclusively used by males, 3 exclusively by females, & 2 for anyone.

Now obviously my circumstances are slightly peculiar! But all my friends with teenage dc find that they prefer not to share toilets at home if they can avoid it - people with say 3 bathrooms find they separate out quite naturally into parents/ds/dd wherever that's practical.

So no, I'm not convinced that families would opt for same sex facilities if they had the choice.

& anyway - if I found myself tomorrow living somewhere with one toilet, I'd share with my son & my daughters would share with their brother because we're a family. This is entirely different from wanting to share with unknown quantity opposite sex persons.

My son's a harmless & delightful young man, who would be horrified to think he was making women feel unsafe. Should other women who don't know this have to share public facilities with all 6'2 & 19 stone of unknown young adult male? (Or, for that matter, if he were half the size...he'd still be an unknown bloke & they'd have every reason to be uncomfortable).

OP glad that link is helpful. I’m so glad you were there for that woman who needed help.

Wouldn’t it be great is any of the women’s forums for architecture could also respond..
I had a quick Google of women in architecture and this group came up (as well as numerous depressing articles about the problems for women architects...)
www.wia-uk.org/

They’re looking for ‘suggestions on what they might focus on’
www.wia-uk.org/who-we-are

Sorry OP dunno why I thought that was an 18 page thread I linked to above... still.. hopefully a thread with 9 pages of first hand accounts should cover it.. the message I took from that loud and clear is that GN toilets are absolutely not a suitable alternative to having women’s single sex toilets.

The author is comparing apartheid with separate sex facilities.

That's a hard no. She's an idiot and thinking she has a decent argument is idiotic.

Someone is also doing this right now on FWR. It's a popular argument for the hard of thinking, it seems.

Women in architecture are also on Twitter: mobile.twitter.com/womeninarch?lang=en

I’m sure they’re not the only relevant women’s organisation (you’d hope!!) they just came up first in my Google search

With RIBA launching an inclusion charter for architects last year committing its signatories to thinking about inclusion in design... you’d think maybe architects would be listening to everyone including women in this area

www.architecture.com/about/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/inclusion-charter

@CorvusPurpureus. Great post. I hypothesize that given human nature and an environment free of social engineering, the sexes would tend to gravitate to separate toilets. It would be an interesting experiment to try out at a music festival with rows of port-a-potties: label some women, some men and some mixed and see what happens. I am also minded of group hikes/walks where it is "gents to the left, ladies to the right" or "gents to the front, ladies to the rear"

@Zandathepanda

A gap at the bottom of the door is a safety measure so if someone collapses (seizure, heart attack etc) then it is more noticeable. If someone is feeling poorly they go to the loo.

Well said.

This gap of knowledge concerning the purpose of the gap is something that really irks me on twitter. It's very insular. Very I'm alright, Jack. Hey! I'm-a-kidult-in-the-prime-of-my-life wittering about how floor-to-ceiling stalls are the apogée of toilet provision. Who cares if it delays how long it takes for others to notice when (and it will be when, not if) an elderly woman passes out on a cubicle.

I think the apprehension about gaps is related to their association with bullying in some settings (like school).

Who cares if it delays how long it takes for others to notice when (and it will be when, not if) an elderly woman passes out on a cubicle.

Not elderly but I've an auto-immune condition that affects my dexterity and I've sometimes found myself unable to unlock a door. Through a combination of circumstances, I've had to slip through the gap at the bottom. It would never be my preferred mode of exit but I've had no option at such times.

I got sent under the door gap once as a child to help a younger child unlock the door, after she got stuck.

The door gap only works in single sex toilets; men like to use it to slip a phone under.

These ideas about having architecturally lovely, clean, single enclosed cubicle toilets all over the place sounds lovely but there's a whole raft of reasons why it a. Won't happen and b. Won't work.

1. Space is a premium in many cities, and older venues. Old theatres in London are a good example. There simply isn't any more space. Pull out the old style ones and replace with individual self contained room and only about 15 people will get to have a piss in the interval
2. Campaigners for accessible toilets have fought for literally years to get what we have. And they still don't have enough. There's not a magic wand
3. Who pays? Councils have been shutting public toilets for years to save money. This is where you would have thought the orgs calling for this would be active. Lobbying, raising money, sponsoring or building facilities, or promising to fund or partially fund them for years. For new or remodeling the old school ones. All I see is words. Interested to know if anyone has more info on that

Next considerations.

'In London, a city normally abounding with restaurants, bars and galleries, those of us who are able-bodied and with disposable income never had to worry about public toilets. .

Not true at all. Public toilets are not common at all. Restaurants bars and galleries generally don't let just anyone in to use the toilet. I don't understand that statement.

'those who are pregnant or menstruating, parents with small children, the elderly, people suffering with Crohn’s disease or with ostomies and other disabilities'

What sex are the vast majority of these people?
If you're shut away you can't ask for a pad etc.
What if there's an accident- someone keels over? In the women's if a cubicle is taken for ages then someone knocks. You can hear a call for help.
What else happens in public toilets that would increase with this idea where you have total privacy?
I would guess. Sex, one or more people taking drugs, shelter for rough sleepers.

Risks? More soundproofed you can be shoved in and attacked. Voyeurism. Mess? Anecdotally men's are worse. Less chance of realising someone is in trouble.
Also much more time consuming and expensive to clean.

This point 'A banner appeared on the fence of Clissold Park bellowing ‘The park is not a toilet, if you need to go then go home.’

Also misses the point. If men need a piss and there's a queue they will simply go outside, down an alley etc. Urinals are very convenient. Men can go in virtual privacy by finding a tree. Drunk men are very much not inhibited about this. That would be grim.

The bizarre idea that it's Victorian prudishness that meant we fought for single sex facilities is nonsensical. Various orgs fight for single sex facilities around the world in countries that have quite different histories and cultures to ours. Is that due to Victorian prudishness?

The thing about communal bogs in ? ancient Rome. Their baths were single sex. Why did they do that I wonder?

In the end mixed sex facilities do not benefit men or women. Men get massive queues suddenly. Women get even longer queues.

Anecdata. My experience of single enclosed ones is that they are usually way manlier than the old school ones. If people are totally by themselves then for some reason they don't take so much care. In the old style ones if you don't flush, shove the bog roll down the pan or whatever people are kind of closer. More aware of each other. I think people behave themselves a bit more when there's the gaps and stuff. Just a thought.

If the author wants toilet utopia then they need to work with charities and councils to set them up and fund them. Not just write stuff about how awful and stupid and old fashioned sex segregated ones are (which is the real point) then provide a lovely sounding but unlikely solution without saying anything about how they would work too achieve it.

@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, that's exactly what I thought.

The fact that this person only noticed the dearth of public facilities in lockdown, having previously used cafes, restaurants etc is really really interesting.

@Thelnebriati

The door gap only works in single sex toilets; men like to use it to slip a phone under.

Exactly. That's why, on balance, I'd rather have cubicles with gaps in a single-sex environment that floor-to-ceiling in a mixed environment.

I take the point that perhaps gaps under the doors in single-sex toilets facilitate bullying in a school environment, but why should we assume that getting rid of them is the safest thing to do in totally different environments?

And the problem there isnt the toilets, its the bullying. Changing the toilets isnt going to eradicate bullying because they weren't the cause. It will just move to another location.

On another thread on this board, a poster had mentioned the work overseas of many UK based charities in building segregated toilets and separate water facilities for women and girls. This provides safety as well as dignity.
One wonders why we should be actively getting rid of the segregated toilets we already have.

Which thread?

I live with people I know and trust. I have privacy from my front door.

If I visit another household, I know and will have built up trust with them.

If I use a public facility I am mixing with a bunch of people I don't know, may have a mindset which may not regard my safety and may well pose an active threat to me. I have no relationship with them. I am in close proximity in a different way to others in my household.

I don't get the comparison between shared toliets at home and shared facilities in a public space with strangers.

It completely misses the starting point that you have already theorectically done a certain degree of relevant gatekeeping and safeguarding before you live with someone.