Discriminatory toilet policy

[Tabbydancer]

I put this in AIBU late at night and after an initial flurry it sunk far beneath a popular post - so I’m reposting this here as I’d like your views

I went to the theatre last night in London. The toilets had been renamed - not ‘men’ and ‘women’ but ‘urinals’ and toilets’.

This really annoyed me and I’d like to get your views before writing to the Playhouse.

Women already take longer in loos and public ladies loos always have queues. But the playhouse, instead of giving women more space, has given men their own space (urinals) plus womens old space with the ‘neutral’ language of ‘toilet’ ie men are invited to use twice as many loos at the playhouse as women.

the playhouse could argue that ‘urinals’ doesn’t say ‘men’ so women could use it. but (unless the playhouse is going to give out sheweees .. ) no woman in her fancy best is going to try and stand up and pee facing forward as that’s not the way womens bodies are designed.

There are cubicles in the ‘urinals’ too (I asked an usher) so the playhouse could write ‘Urinals and toilets’ on the old mens doors so women would also feel they have been invited inside. But the playhouse haven’t done that. So women won’t go in. (Also when i saw ‘urinals’ and ‘toilets’ on the door I assumed the toilets were just cubiclesand that men were being invited to literally shit in the ladies - and wee in their own.).

The first loo I came to just says toilet so my assumption was that all the toilets
Were unisex. I wasn’t the only one to think that as I heard two young women come in and discuss it. They were confused. I was really dispirited by the thought I was peeing in a unisex toilet as two of the cubicles didn’t have working locks. It was only after I saw urinals thst I realised toilets was code for women.

If the playhouse can write ‘urinals’ (to indicate there is equipment inside for penises) why not put tampax machines in the ‘toilets’ and put ‘sanitary products available’ on the door as that will indicate provision for people with uterus’z that will deter men and the playhouse can appear to be both trans friendly and women friendly (al thy Pugh even with the old signs women didn’t have enough loos…)

Urinals and toilets seems a pointless naming excercise - nodding towards unisex without being unisex. They are the same toilets - no different facilities, doors don’t go down to the floors etx - with different names, reimagined by an administration trying to be trans friendly but not caring about the confusion or discomfort it might cause. If they want to be fair to biological women why not write Penis and Vagjna on the door as urinals are for ‘people with penises’ (cut out the teference to toilet furniture and go straight to naming the body part).

I actually think this naming policy might be discriminatory against untransitioned trans men - if they think there are only urinals inside the room marked ‘urinals’ they’ll need to go to the ‘toilets’ instead and join the long queue with all the women.

In summation: Ill thought out and discriminatory against women

What do you think?

I think this is complete bullshit, done from a place of either misogynist or at best unthinking sheep like mentality.

There was another thread recently where the OP encountered similar and emailed the venue a couple of times,eventually pointing to the legislation which proves that mixed sex loos without full length doors etc are illegal so I'd suggest you follow a similar approach

This is the one OP

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4394167-man-in-women-s-loos-did-o-overreact

Have to check there are san bins in both

Thank you

This is a very useful resource womansplaceuk.org/2020/02/27/mixed-sex-toilets-model-letter/

Which theatre

Playhouse

Agree - women have been given less choice and are therefore disadvantaged

This is at the very least indirect discrimination on the basis of sex. That is women are unfairly disadvantaged, if you assume that both sanitary facilities are intended to be used by men and women.

Let's say there's ten urinals and six cubicles in one facility and sixteen cubicles in the other. Previously this gave men and women equal provision (which is still indirect sex discrimination, as it puts women at a disadvantage, because we need more than three times longer to urinate and have additional needs. This is why ratios in modern buildings are meant to be 2:1 or even 3:1 women vs men).

But let's say you started out equal.

Now both facilities are mixed sex.

Men: 10 urinals, 22 cubicles = 32 places to pee
Women: 22 cubicles = 22 places to pee.

Women have 68.75% of the provision that men can use.

That calculation assumes women are willing to use a space where men are in partial undress. Which most women are not, for various reasons, including privacy, dignity, safety and cultural or religious restrictions.

Taking this into account we have:

Men: 10 urinals, 22 cubicles = 32 places to pee
Women: 16 cubicles = 16 places to pee.

Women have 50% of the provision that men can use.

There are building regulations that specify exactly how many male and female toilets an entertainment venue has to provide. (Usually calculated per 100 or 1000 visitors). I believe that the Playhouse is in breach of those regulations.

The relevant regulation is:

British Standard 6465 (1:2006+A1:2009)

It says:

Note 1 In the absence of more reliable information it should be assumed that the audience will be 50% male and 50% female.

WC: Males: In single-screen cinemas, theatres, concert halls and similar premises without licensed bars:

1 for up to 250 males plus
1 for every additional 500 males or part thereof.

WC: Females: For single-screen cinemas, theatres, concert halls and similar premises without licensed bars:

2 for up to 40 females
3 for 41 to 70 females
4 for 71 to 100 females
plus 1 for every additional 40 females or part thereof.

Urinal: Males: In single-screen cinemas, theatres, concert halls and similar premises without licensed bars: 2 for up to 100 males plus 1 for every additional 80 males or part thereof

(No entry for females next to this heading)

Calculation of absolute numbers must be based on 75% of total capacity. Which Wikipedia tells me is 786.

For each sex then the calculation must be based on 295 visitors.

For males that's 2 WCs and 5 urinals minimum. For females that's 9 WCs minimum.

That's the regulation they need to adhere to. If we assume the toilets were originally built as designed, they would now be in breach, as female customers only have 5.5 toilets if both spaces are mixed-sex, and 4.5 if women avoid the space with urinals.

Nothing useful to add except thanks to OP for taking the time and trouble to challenge the theatre on this. And to CharlieParley for sharing her awesome knowledge! I, and I'm sure many others, feel much more confident about taking venues to task about this when otherwise we would have suffered in silence.

More women than men go to the theatre so I never understand why theatres haven't worked out that the women who are queueing up for the toilets, or avoiding drinking so they don't have to queue for the toilets, are women who aren't spending money in the bar, the restaurant or the shop. Maybe it needs to be pointed out to them that they are losing money on this. They obviously run on the basis of women just quietly enduring a worse theatre experience so maybe women need to start boycotting theatres that provide inadequate service to the majority of their customers. I really hate it when you see men having a laugh at the bar in the interval while women are stuck in a boring queue.

The theatre doing this has also put the cast's 'pronouns' prominently at the start of their bios, which isn't something theatres usually do, so it sounds like it's very signed up to the ideology.

Sounds like a decision taken by children. The problems with it are multiple. I despair.

Is it an old one with sod all women's toilets to start with, and no room to add more?

Old theatres in London are a nightmare for women when it comes to intervals/ end. Incredibly long queues. And whether any / many men use those facilities. Unisex so choice. It's a really obviously retrograde move to essentially still keep the gents (urinals I mean that's obviously the gents and few women would go in and the men really wouldn't like it). And change women to everyone.

That's a point. If with a man/ or in general. They could contact and say really unhappy that gents is now unisex as don't want women coming in while having a piss.

And that's true- men don't want that at all.

It's another thing where they are relying on social norms and female socialisation and the fact that when women do things men don't like some of them aren't backwards in letting women know. And of course women try to avoid that (as do most men tbh).

Incidentally Barbican did this and then reversed decision I'll find a link...

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/barbican-to-review-genderneutral-toilets-after-furious-row-over-long-queues-for-women-a3509136.html?amp