Single-sex lavatories to be mandatory in all new public buildings

[ChristinaXYZ]

I really like the phrase “forced sharing” - I think we should use it more often as it sums up the lack of consent in shared facilities - unlike the neutral sounding 'gender neutral' .

Anyway, good news - I think this is building something that was initially announced by Robert Jenrick last year but got a bit lost after his demotion:

"New office buildings, schools, hospitals and entertainment venues must have separate male and female lavatories, ministers will declare this week, in a move to rein in the “forced sharing” of gender-neutral facilities.

The Telegraph understands that the Government will formally announce that it is acting to prevent non-residential buildings from being built solely with “universal” lavatories. The move will involve changes to building regulations and planning guidance.

The plans, being spearheaded by Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister, were quietly approved by ministers last month after Mrs Badenoch was warned that some children were avoiding using lavatories at school because they only had access to gender-neutral facilities.

Mrs Badenoch has insisted that it is both legal and “important” to provide single-sex spaces for men and women."

If we could replace Boris with Kemi I'd be a very happy woman.

read more

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/02/single-sex-lavatories-mandatory-new-public-buildings - Telegraph has excelled itself with coverage this last week or so.

This is good news let's not derail it.

I work in an industry where it has been quietly forced in - mainly because it's cheaper for the landlord or developer. Really glad to see common sense prevail.

Again: in small words.

What are we going to do with the uterus having people who cannot access mixed sex spaces?

Should they lose access to anything so that penis having people can take their preferred choice of access from all the facilities?

This is good news let's not derail it.

Is that a pun? I quite agree

Yep, for those that don't do 'exclusion', well you do either way and this ruling reflects that. Include males and you start excluding many females.

Fairly easy to convert those type to single sex. Change the sign on the doors say their is a line of 8 of them, make the first 4 male and the next 4 female.

But I do not the legislation is referring to new buildings not retrospective fitting in old buildings. However it should stop more building being converted.

just looked at sky news. after the headline it says

"Separate unisex or universal toilets should be provided if there is space but should not come at the expense of female toilets"

Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch said " it is vital that women feel safe and comfortable when using public facilities, and that their needs are respected"

So very clear as to the reasons why women should have single sex facilities. This is for new buildings but it may help anyone wishing to challenge women's toilets that have been changed to unisex under the EA.

So that would mean the male toilets could become unisex but not the female

To be fair that makes perfect sense to me. And I can see sport going the same way an 'open' category and a 'female' category.

I think somebody is very aware that women's toilets are being appropriated to be unisex toilets leaving men's toilets are they are.

I would like to think somebody is reading this board!

Well if somebody is reading this board, please have a word with Priti Patel and get her to put a stop to the gender neutral nonsense in the new build for her department.

Dissenters were dismissed with "gender neutral is the way forward" 🙄and are pretty unhappy.

I travelled a lot by plane. I spent 30-40% of my nights away from home in the last years before I retired. I typically was on 40 plus flights a year if you include transfers

I can tell you that I avoided using the plane loos as much as possible. I’d not drink too much on flights and go to loo immediately before boarding and find loo as soon as I disembarked . For the airports I used regularly I knew where nearest rest rooms were to the gates. I also knew the quietest and cleanest loos in the terminals

on longer haul flights I’d wait until I saw an air stewardess go in to clean ( what a lovely glamorous job they have cleaning up after people who seem not to be able to pee into a toilet and then clean up after themselves🤢). If that wasn’t possible id either wait until some other ( less clued up) women had gone in before me, or ask the stewardess to clean it before I used.
it was bloody awful. Even in first class - though there stewards would at least try to clean the seats between each visit.

for long hauls I never changed my clothing on board for fear of dragging clothes into the piss on the floor or worse.

I used a lot of hygienic wet wipes I always carried with me . And the first thing I did when getting to hotel or home was take a shower.

it is disgusting. I think planes (and trains) should have separate toilets but in terms of passenger number outside of holiday destinations men far exceed women so it would cause issues with queues when for safety people need to remain seated ideally.

It is a perk of retiring that I don’t ever have to go on an airplane again. Ever. Between that loo shit, delays, being treated like cattle, more delays, admin errors with tickets and seat reservations I’m done.

This is the key point. But the point you missed was that women fought so hard against this because it basically imprisoned them in their homes.
before women had access to public toilets they could only go out for limited periods between loo breaks or to the homes of other people or “suitable” places women were supposed to meet that did provide a facility or 2.
mean revisited women getting rights to public toilets all the way…because the rights gave women freedom. It meant they could work outside the home. They could frequent public places . They could spend a whole day outside at their own free will and self determination.

removing womens single sexed toilets is removing our freedoms to go about our business freely for longer than the period between 2 loos breaks.

Either men and women who are trying to desex toilets are stupid not to realise it or are absolutely aware of what they doing. Sure, not all women will object or refuse to use toilets. But if we make toilets unpleasant a large proportion of women will change their behaviours back to the 19th century. They’ll avoid using the toilet, drink less…and gradually return to not going out for longer than they can hold their bladder for.

Mean revisited= MEN resisted (parliament and the like)

Is this the BBC only now getting round to writing on this?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62034932

If there is anyone such as that reading here: they need to be aware that the bullet will have to be bitten in not only ensuring that there are female only toilets too to ensure that all female people are not excluded in the progress to provide TQ+ suitable provision, but also that it will have to be very firmly stated and insisted on that these female only provisions are respected by TQ+ and if their own needs are met that they permit female people to have the needed resources to have equal access.

It is not just a case of providing female only toilets in addition to all the others; it is requiring that society moves on from the entitlement expressed on this thread of 'if TW want to they can and will and sucks to be a female who is excluded'.

Mutual respect and a major sea change in the attitudes of the TQ+ political lobby is going to have to happen. Because just expecting female people to give up on access to anything at all is not 'kind' or 'inclusive' or even basically acceptable, and Westminster are finally (finally!) catching on to this.

Does anyone know if this applies to Scotland too? Or just England?

OT there's a good talk by town planner Dr Clara Greed about the provision of public toilets and the phenomenon known as "bladder leash," or being constrained in where you go by the availability of adequate facilities.

Thanks, Embarrassing - that was an excellent talk. Simultaneously informative, witty, and making a series of important points.

Shows how far we’ve gone down the rabbit hole that this is even considered controversial or newsworthy.

Good on you Kemi Badenoch!

What are you talking about, those aren't mixed sex, they are single occupancy, which is not the same at all.

I don't think that's what it means, but it it does, I don't think it's acceptable. Men don't necessarily like having their privacy invaded either and there are men who can't toilet where there are women, just like there are women who can't where there are men, because of their religious beliefs.

"Separate unisex or universal toilets should be provided if there is space but should not come at the expense of female toilets"

What do you think that statement means if it doesn't mean female & unisex?
Protecting female means transwomen are in the unisex. I really doubt buildings will be built with 4 sets of toilets.
Female, Male, Unisex, Disabled.

I have read it as providing male and female toilets plus disabled. And then if there is room a unisex toilet. Because trans women want to go into womens toilets it aims to steer away from a creeping default to have mens toilets and “everybody else” toilets

“The Government is also aware of broader concerns that women’s biological differences are being ‘erased’ in public life. It is important that women’s biological needs are respected and taken into account in the provision of facilities such as toilets.”

questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-07-04/hcws172

To be clear, this provision will not affect the right transgender people have to go to the facilities which match their gender identity. Toilets are not single-sex in the EA2010 sense.