Gender-neutral lavatories banned in new-build restaurants and offices

[IwantToRetire]

The new legislation applies to commercial properties as well as those undergoing ‘major refurbishment’

Bars, restaurants and offices will be barred from creating new premises with gender-neutral lavatories, under changes to the law to take effect later this year.

In a move which ministers said would increase the “safety, privacy and dignity” of women, new non-domestic buildings will be required to include separate male and female lavatories.

Those that cannot do so will have to install so-called universal facilities, which include a lavatory, wash basin and hand dryer behind a lockable door.

As well as affecting all new commercial buildings, the measure will also apply to businesses and hospitality venues undertaking “major refurbishment”

Article continues at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-neutral-lavatories-banned-toilet-commercial-buildings-trans-zzsg826st
and can be read at https://archive.ph/FQlr2

I was thinking this means it will now be the law, but in fact means that a bill to achieve this will only be presented (this week?)

From the Government statement:

Changes to building regulations will ensure that:

• Separate single-sex toilets facilities are provided for men and women;
• Self-contained, universal toilets may be provided in addition to single-sex toilets, where space allows;
• Self-contained universal toilets may be provided instead of single-sex toilets only where lack of space reasonably precludes provision of single-sex toilet accommodation.

Read full statement at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-lay-new-law-to-halt-the-march-of-gender-neutral-toilets-in-buildings

Why not just say that only universal ones are ok (proper door, sink etc, opening onto a corridor?)

that’s what I’d like best by far. No messing.

My initial thought is how good it is to hear the words dignity and privacy for women

We never hear that so bravo

As for the practicalities I’ll rtft

😱

It’s a step forward. But what we really need is a change in the mindset that allows men to casually use women’s facilities without being questioned.

Having to show a valid GRC would be a small improvement, which would enrage TRAs but make women’s spaces a little safer.

But the mindset has to change, back to what was universally accepted up till just a few years ago, that makes fo not enter women’s spaces.

From the BBC website:
The change to building regulations will also allow contained, universal toilets in addition to single-sex toilets where space allows, or instead of single-sex toilets where there is not enough space.

Top posting.

Would that work if the doors were outward facing and there were gaps, @Keeptoiletssafe ?

I assume this means they are about to make the draft proposed Part T of the Building Regulations a full Approved Document.

The draft has been around for a while, you can Google for it, and like another poster above it influence a project of mine to be redesigned to have single sex toilets as well as gender neutral instead of just gender neutral.

I think that would be much better but there’s no space to do this as opening out doors take more space for people waiting. But then you get more likelihood of people ‘holding in’ because of worries of voyeuristic behaviour (which is what able bodied people like about fully enclosed toilets).

There is never going to be a solution for everyone but the optimum one is always going to have door gaps for safeguarding when it really matters (medical emergencies and assaults) which are proportionately more likely to happen in a public toilet.

Yep this is the universal toilet design. As you can see, it’s fully enclosed, has a door opening inwards and no alarm. And worryingly in the draft it says it could be used as an option in single sex facilities. We don’t know if this has been superseded by today’s announcement. But I feel this could break discrimination laws and health and safety at work laws if this was put in as a preference rather than the single sex toilets with door gaps and a means of rescue.

If someone fell against the door they would be there for some time.

edit: if you click the picture you’ll see the bit about single sex toilets

@BloodyHellKenAgain it says “allow” I want it to say “must also provide”

Until Labour gets in and reverses it.

In a rush but very surprised about the comments on this announcement.

There have been so many threads on this with all the points made here already been made.

There has been a consultation. Some of us contributed to this. KB has made it clear she is about re-establishing single SEX toilets. So not sure why anyone is talking about GRC.

It might be worth searching the earlier threads so that we can see this for what it is, a step forward. But mind numbingly slowly.

And the worry is that although KB is pushing this, in terms of the many problems the Tories have not sure the time will be found for the building requirements bill to be fitted in.

And we can be sure Labour wont be finding time for it.

So all we can do now is put pressure on the Tories to bring this forward so it isn't presented by the press (who continue to use the word gender which this isn't about) as a fringe issue.

I saw Anna Soubry on one of those paper review programmes, and she immediately derailed the discussion with fatuous remarks about how could train comply with this law. She is a former MP and a Barrister and hadn't even bothered to read the detail and instread used it as a platform to attack her former colleagues for fermenting a woke war.

At the very least what we can all do is make sure that it is reportedly accurate about single sex provision not being eroded.

(I didn't read the bit about schools, but really suggest not commenting based on the paragraphs I highlights but the actual documents.)

I don’t think they will reverse it. If you follow the evidence, science and health and safety laws through, it makes sense to have toilets that are easy to access in an emergency.

Most people know someone who has diabetes, cardiac problems, strokes, epilepsy, whose drink has been spiked, who has been sexually assaulted. For all of these conditions or incidences the person is less safe in a fully private toilet like the universal design. Once people think it through, it becomes obvious. And once you have experienced a situation, it becomes more than about feelings. Medical stuff doesn’t care what sex you are or inner feelings.

These are all the recent Government announcements about this.

So the newest (this thread) is at the top, but was reached by these various stages, ie oldest at the bottom.

Government to lay new law to halt the march of gender-neutral toilets in buildings
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-lay-new-law-to-halt-the-march-of-gender-neutral-toilets-in-buildings

New building requirements for separate male and female toilets
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-building-requirements-for-separate-male-and-female-toilets

New building requirements for separate male and female toilets
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-building-requirements-for-separate-male-and-female-toilets

Toilet provision for men and women: call for evidence (now closed)
https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence

Toilet provision for men and women: call for evidence - analysis of responses received
https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence/outcome/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence-analysis-of-responses-received

Toilet provision in buildings other than dwellings: a technical consultation paper
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/toilet-provision-in-buildings-other-than-dwellings-technical-consultation/toilet-provision-in-buildings-other-than-dwellings-a-technical-consultation-paper

So despite dealing with Trade and whatever else, KB has been pushing this forward.

In an ideal world i agree, but we don't live in an ideal world so I would prioritise health and safety of women and children (single sex provision) as they are the majority group and the groups most likely to be at a disadvantage from unisex (aka gender neutral) facilities.

@IwantToRetire yes I agree. The first consultation was very much bombarded by lobbying (gender-neutral). This led the policy goals being centred around privacy and uni sex facilities which were alarming.

The information coming out today sound good but we are still concerned that (like in 4.2 of the Requirement T1: Toilet accommodation) buildings may provide universal toilets within a single sex space.

For safety and hygiene reasons this would be bad news.

@BloodyHellKenAgain you have missed my original point. I want single sex facilities plus universal/ gender neutral facilities to be a requirement in new buildings.

Older buildings may need a compromise but new builds can have them both from the word go.

I don't see why schools should be exempt from this. Our local secondary has mixed sex open plan toilets with full doors, all sited on a corner so they have two sides of the 'room' open to the corridor. My DD would not consider the school after seeing this, saying what if a friend needed to pass you a sanitary towel under the door, or if you came out of the cubicle with period blood on your hands. We know a girl who goes there who doesn't use the toilet all day.

There's provision for universal toilets too which do make sense where there's insufficient space for multiple types of toilet. The devil will be in the final wording! Personally I'd like to see multiple options in the legislation basic on building type and size from a single universal toilet requirement in a corner cafe to a requirement for blocks of male, female. universal (also ideal for dads with potty trained youngsters), standard disabled and full changing places toilet (with hoist) at large shopping centres, services, airports etc. with in between sized buildings needing to work out what's appropriate for their space

There's been legislation for years stating that schools MUST provide single sex toilets for all children over the age of 8 .
The problem has been allowing Stonewall and all the trans lobby groups to influence schools and tell them that in the interests of inclusion males must have access to girls who are undressing, using the toilet etc.

Plus companies who install toilets in schools coming up with some unverified "research" stating that mixed sex toilets improve behaviour and encouraging schools to invest in building new mixed sex toilets. Quite a money spinner for them.

That’s not how you spell 🐿

Of course the term ‘gender-neutral’ for toilets or changing rooms is incoherent gobbledygook.

I wonder if Liverpool City Council will now offer an apology to Liverpool ReSisters, when one of their members asked for a review before making City building loos "gender neutral" and she was bellowed at by then-mayor, Joe Anderson.

re schools as they have been mentioned - the article says

There will be exemptions in the regulations for schools, residential rooms in care homes and premises used mainly for early years provision.

Separate facilities for boys and girls aged 8 years-old or over must already be provided in schools, except where it is in a room which can be secured from the inside and is for one pupil at a time.

This is the link to guidance on provisions of toilets in schools as writtend by Safe School Alliance
https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/singlesextoiletsfactsheet.pdf