All new public spaces to have single-sex toilets - and the BBC's determination to miss the point

[WhereYouLeftIt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001pmcl

Today's 'World at One' starting at 40'25".

Sarah Montague: "Now, the Government has announced that new public spaces will have to be built with separate male and female toilets as standard. According to them, the change comes amid dignity and privacy concerns from women and elderly people, after they carried out a consultation of 17,000 people. Now, whatever you may think about the hows and whys it does seem that what everyone can agree on when it comes to public toilets is that we need more of them.

Raymond Martin is Director of the British Toilet Association. I asked him if he supported what the Government had announced."

Raymond Martin: "Oh, very much so. Gender neutral toilets just don't work, is the simple answer to it. A unisex toilet which is very simple, it's a single room - you go in, you close the door, you do your business, you come back out again. That's a unisex toilet, and those are quite acceptable and we've grown up with them and we've become accustomed to them. [Sarah tries to speak but RM continues] Gender-neutral toilets is where you have congregation, and that's not a good thing."

Sarah Montague: "OK, I mean, I suppose most people would think 'I don't really care what the figure is on the outside of the door, just trying to find a public toilet can be very difficult."

Raymond Martin: "That's absolutely true Sarah. We've lost nearly 60% ..."

And from then on, the conversation revolves around the number of public toilets, who provides them, who has shirked their responsibilities to provide them, where the money should come from, etc. The point that Raymond Martin made, that gender-neutral toilets are "not a good thing", is never returned to.

Well done Sarah Montague, you'll be getting head-pats from the BBC for making sure that the Director of the British Toilet Association had no chance to expand on why gender-neutral toilets "just don't work" and are "not a good thing".

OK, I mean, I suppose most people would think 'I don't really care what the figure is on the outside of the door

Er, I do care, I'm not walking into the men's.

I also care if the symbol is unclear and cartoony like they are at the pizza express near me because then people get it wrong

Interesting this weekend watching women vote with their feet at the Edinburgh Fringe, queueing for much longer for the female toilets than the 'Everyone' option...

Where there is a split - male and female toilets separately, behind separate doors, with multiple cubicles and a shared sink space - there should be more floor space and so more cubicles given over to the women.

I've just been in a small airport, where there were two cubicles in the women's, with clearly the same in the men's - the doors from the hall were open and you could see that; not sure if they had a urinal to the side. There was a queue past the sinks in the women's and the men were just walking in. That's not acceptable either.

Single unisex self-contained toilets are, I think, the best solution in spaces where you don't have so much demand at a single time. It's more equal, since it doesn't disadvantage all the women. It makes more sense to me for say a cafe to have two single self-contained toilets that are both unisex, than for it to have one self-contained toilet marked female and one male. You might end up with the men leaving the toilet seats up, which is disagreeable, but at least you don't have only the women losing their time.

None of that works for toilets with more demand at a certain time, since those need to be able to get more users through and so want B to be able to go in to the cubicle while A is still washing her hands. Those toilets should remain single sex.

@Precipice

Where there is a split - male and female toilets separately, behind separate doors, with multiple cubicles and a shared sink space - there should be more floor space and so more cubicles given over to the women.

Very much in agreement, and also there should be specific legislation to this effect. It's called potty parity laws, and they've actually been a thing for decades in other parts of the world, including some fairly conservative US states. Usually specifies specific ratios, e.g. 2:1 or 3:2 minimum in favour of women, or simply mandate equal wait times as the outcome. It's a shame women's rights have taken such a giant step back over the past 10 years nobody is even speaking about this anymore.

@Precipice

Forgot to add, re your comment about men leaving the toilet seats up - which invariably means floors sticky with urine: venues can always specify a sitting-down rule and reinforce it with splashback paint.

I think all toilets should have the variety of Chester Market (including Roman Soldier and Suffragette).

This is a really good point about single capacity toilets being much slower.

Also I really don't like the sink being enclosed in the same room as the toilet, because then you have to touch a door handle after hand washing.

I think the best layout for both speed and hygiene is the kind they often have at large motorway services or airports: single sex, with an open doorway where you walk in and round a corner before seeing rows of sinks and rows of cubicles. A woman can take a long time at one sink (brushing teeth, makeup, whatever) and you just choose another sink. After washing your hands there's no door handle to touch before leaving.

I also quite like the communal aspect of the sinks. I've had so so many situations when I've been upset or ill and been able to talk to a friend (or indeed just another woman) at the sinks.

I hate it when it's not a normal picture or a word. I stood in the front of the toilets in a restaurant for about 5 mins the other week trying to work out what symbol I was meant to go in! Ridiculous!!

The worst one I saw was a picture of Caitlin Jenner as Caitlin for the ladies and Bruce for the gents.
So two pictures of the same man basically

Oh how woke, right on and trendy I bet they thought they were being!