Idea to solve the toilet/changing room 'problem'

[VoodooQualities]

1. Government consults special interest groups (women, trans, disabled, religious etc.)

2. Guidance is issued on best practices for designing and building mixed sex, inclusive facilities that work, as best as possible, for all the interest groups. (So you know, that'd likely be wall to floor lockable doors, no steps or narrow spaces, sinks and showers inside the cubicles), cleaners and other staff (or CCTV?) highly visible in shared areas etc etc.)

3. Organisations when doing refurb or new builds, can choose to (a) implement the guidance, or (b) go for traditional sex-segregated, or (3) gender-segregated facilities depending on their beliefs.

4. Customers and service users can vote with their feet. (Perhaps there's a register so potential patrons can check in advance what the facilities are like.)

5. Organisations are allowed to challenge customers who transgress boundaries, and customers who do so should expect to be challenged.

I would assume that publicly run facilities like pools and council buildings etc should go for the mixed sex option, done in line with the guidance.

Can I have your thoughts?

Plain old cubicles with a gap underneath do exactly the same without the expense and complexity of electrics.

Remember these godawful things?

SHUDDER.

@ancientgran , I only use disabled loos if I really need it. Because of MS, I take ages in the loo but I prefer to leave disabled loos to people more disabled than me. What with them actually being the most marginalised in society.
If companies are willing to stump the cash and the space for lots of good sized fully equipped rooms for mixed sex toilet facilities as standard, keeping them clean , then fine.

God the lengths to which some posters would go to to appease males is astonishing.

Why anyone would expect business and local authority employers to spend £££ to give these males what they want is beyond me.

And I've cleaned loos in my time ancientgran to supplement my student finances. Men are definitely not as hygenic as women.

The road to hell is paved with good (automated toileting) intentions…

amp.lbc.co.uk/news/man-crushed-telescopic-urinal-london-dead/

The thing is, male and female spaces are gender neutral and always have been. Gender, we are told, is an identity thing. There is no commonality of identity between people in the male loos - some trans people try and obfuscate that fact in order to justify their invasion of women' spaces, but it's important to see it for the bullshit it is. I have no commonality of identity with most others in the ladies loo - we just all use it because we are female bodied. Hence, there is no need for third spaces. There is, however, a need for some people to realise that the only people who are suggesting that using the male loos is an identity statement is themselves.

So if your daughter is a transman, surely they would be perfectly happy to use male facilities? If not, isn’t that hypocritical? So demanding females share spaces with males but not prepared to do that themselves. It is so fucking annoying. Either you’re a man and use male facilities or you’re a woman and use female facilites. Same goes for the the whole #bekind huns. If you wanna share facilities with men, off you pop and use the mens and leave the womens for those of us who want single sex spaces. There you go, I’ve solved the problem with no expensive consultation and changes needed.

I'd forgotten about that. Eminently sensible guidance. Gives the lie to the pretence that there's some massive groundswell of opinion opposing single sex toilet provision, or thinking it's outdated. Let's cross our fingers regarding implementation.

I will concede the point that men are dirty beasts.

This is not a problem without a solution though. More cleaners, ought to do it. I have no issue with creating more jobs paid for out of my taxes (or just paying 20p to have a wee and paying them out of that).

I'm not sure I'm 'going to lengths to appease males' here, more just a thought experiment.

Such good points there.

This is not a problem without a solution though. More cleaners, ought to do it. I have no issue with creating more jobs paid for out of my taxes (or just paying 20p to have a wee and paying them out of that).

Yet more money being spent on something of no benefit to women!

Still a hard NO from me.

Yet more money being spent on something of no benefit to women!

More cleaners would definitely benefit women. Men are dirty beasts for sure but women's loos ain't all sweetness and light.

Still a hard NO from me.

I've heard you loud and clear!

The below is taken from this and I have added some personal bits:

www.wcportables.co.uk/blog/why-public-toilet-doors-do-not-reach-the-floor/

Some reasons why public toilet doors do not reach the floor

1) Ideal in cases of emergency: The gap could help other users notice someone who has collapsed or fainted in an enclosed stall. In these circumstances, a toilet user or a member of an emergency team can squeeze through the gaps to provide help to the affected individual. It could be the difference in a life-threatening situation.

My friends and I saw an arm sticking out the door gap in a nightclub. My friend shimmied over the top. There was a girl in there grey coloured, covered in vomit and unconscious. We moved her so the door could open (inwards) and called an ambulance. It happened so quickly and never thought about it until my own child went to university.

There are hundreds of thousands of epileptics in this country whose seizures aren’t controlled by medication. Sometimes people feel ill before a seizure, sometimes not and wouldn’t have no time to pull a cord.

2) The overall cost is cheaper. Designing and constructing a door that extends to the floor might cost more. This could be due to the complexity of the design, material and labour hours. This may explain why some management teams opt for toilet doors that have a considerable gap from the floor.

Also means the doors don’t get jammed as they warp.

3) It makes cleaning easier: Cleaners can easily extend the floor mops into the stalls without having to open the doors. They can also evaluate the state of the toilet via the gap between the floor and door. It saves cleaning time and encourages frequent or a short interval cleaning routine.

They can get to all crevices, particularly with all sorts of fluids not encrusting the door.

4) Faster escape of bad odour: Toilet is a natural environment for the release of bad odour. The gap between the door and the floor provides a quick escape of the foul smell that was generated by previous users.
It helps your toilet experience to become bearable. Without the gap, the odour is sustained in a stall and becomes unbearable to subsequent users

5) Easy to determine availability: The uniqueness of modern-day toilet locks can make it quite hard to tell if a stall is empty. As some toilets use a green indication for a vacant facility and red for those occupied. Nothing beats the eyes test of glancing through the gap for any sign of occupancy.

As an ex-teacher I used to do sweeps of the toilet blocks. If a cubicle was locked, I gave a

shout then looked under the gap. What would I have done in a real emergency with a locked full-length door? I don’t know

6) Ensures the toilet queue flows: Toilets with doors of this nature could negatively impact people’s privacy. When individuals sense others can listen to their business that easily, they are prone to wrap up quickly.

7) Reduced bad toilet habits or behaviours: As we have earlier indicated, raised toilet doors can limit the privacy of users. With this in mind, people will refrain from exhibiting poor behaviour. The embarrassment of being spotted acting inappropriately will ensure people err on the side of caution.

It was documented and discussed that there one as least one rape per school day in U.K. schools reported (Parliament and BBC article). As a teacher I am shocked but wondered where these can happen. Obviously anywhere that decreases visibility increases the chance of bad things happening - particularly if it’s mixed sexed toilets so each sex has a reason to be there. Also drug taking.

Adrian Chiles did an article in the Guardian about how much he liked the new gender neutral toilets with their full length doors. This was due to it being a much nicer experience for him to sit down poo in peace as he was traumatised by children looking over at him at school when he was on the toilet. He suggested piped music to make the experience even better. Obviously hadn’t even crossed his mind about the very, very good safety and hygiene reasons for toilets being designed as they are.

Link for rapes in schools evidence:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34138287

Agree.
We looked at secondary schools last September for youngest DD (who in the past has had various medical devices eg Hickman lines).

We walked into one and left within ten minutes as DD burst into spontaneous tears having clapped eyes on the lavs.

Brand new building and the wall between the corridor and the cubicles was all glass, like a shop window.
Row of cubicles on one side marked M, row of cubicles on the other side marked F - central sinks with no mirrors so girls washing hands would look directly at boys washing hands in the opposite sink.

She has so much body horror due to being a childhood cancer survivor the disregard for any sort of privacy or dignity gave her a PTSD-like response.

We’ve applied for our nearest all-girls non selective school but it’s oversubscribed.
National offer day is Wednesday - keep your fingers crossed for her please wimms?

😂😂

WHAT ABOUT THE CATGENDER FOLX??!!! EH?

AROGENDER DEMISEXUALS NEED THEIR OWN SPACES!!!

That was really quite spiteful.

Feel better, do you?

So if your daughter is a transman, surely they would be perfectly happy to use male facilities?

Does the 'your' refer to me (since I mentioned my daughter)? Or just a general 'your'.

If the former, well apparently transpeople can can use whichever toilet they feel like. My daughter's not a transman btw.

If the latter, well yes you'd think wouldn't you? Don't ask me what goes on in their heads. I don't get it at all.

How would having fewer toilets reduce queues?

This idea has been suggested many times, and rejected by the TRAs.

What are your thoughts, Op?

There isn't a concensus, that's what I'm seeing, though most are definitely saying I'm batshit and keep things single sex thank you.

Every survey, including the consultation I referred to has come out with a vast majority in favour of single sex toilets and in particular making sure that the single sex female toilets remain just that - resolutely single sex.

My original point was about young men and women though. Twenty somethings or whatever. There's millions of them, or so it seems from social media.

And? What particular need do they have that single sex toilets do not provide for? Essentially all they are doing is virtue signalling and trying to look good and the relevance of that to actual need is? Who are they to over-ride the non consent of any woman or group of women? Why do they in all their inclusiveness insist on excluding women, some of whom are already extremely vulnerable and marginalised in society, from the very facilities that were designed for them use, to provide them with safety, privacy, dignity and comfort?

Only the least tolerant, least progressive, and most callous could even contemplate that.

Theres no problem to solve for women. We are happy with single sex facilities.

@VoodooQualities
Most people (the overwhelming response) want sex-segregated provision + accessible toilets, according to an actual recent survey.

This is why posters are asking why we would need a) another survey b) to potentially reduce the provision of single-sex toilets for the sake of at most 262,000 people out of 59,600,000 in England and Wales. That's less than 0.5% of the population - and some of them, like your daughter, are happy to use single-sex facilities, so the actual percentage is lower. Space is limited and money is tight. Single sex facilities are an absolute necessity for women, and the overwhelming choice of the public, so I say no to options which would allow providers to decide against them for cost reasons or virtue signalling points. It's too important. We need more singe sex facilities, if anything, not fewer.

Your poor daughter. Fingers firmly crossed.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/philosophy/trackers/how-comfortable-brits-feel-using-gender-neutral-toilets-in-public-spaces

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/philosophy/trackers/support-for-separate-toilets-for-men-and-women-and-gender-neutral-toilets-in-public-spaces

Not a consultation, but online polling does not support a move to "gender neutral" toilets.

That's quite a leap from what I said, as you well know.

Of course I don't think bullying in any form is OK. I disagree that mixed sex loos is the way to prevent it.

Yes, women's loos can be messy too, but much less so than mixed sex ones, in my experience. And even in perfectly nice single room loos like in cafes etc, even when perfectly clean and tidy men use them, they still smell different to when women use them. and since smells build up more in small cubicles that are used very frequently and where you might be waiting to use them, I'd really rather not follow a man using one.

Yes I have also been in places with individual mixed sex toilets, and yes I do find them worse than women's toilets.

If you want individual cubicles opening onto a hallway, then why not still designate them single sex?

I think schools can do other things to prevent bullying rather than build mixed sex toilets.