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

No, I don’t have mobility problems.

There are lots of medical issues where people (especially women) need access to a toilet with a private sink, and space to get fully undressed and change clothes.

I end up using a disabled toilet, which isn’t ideal because I’m taking up space that disabled people need. A large cubicle with its own sink would be sufficient, and that would leave the disabled toilet free for the people who actually need that facility.

Yes I see what you mean.

Another big push is for incontinence bins in men’s particularly geared to those with prostate problems. Another worthy cause.

Discussed on sky news

https://x.com/skynews/status/1787774133360574837?s=46&t=aWQLrPtVicDNf6MQpq5WVg

youll be stunned to know that ‘crystal’ doesn’t think women have a right to single sex toilets

Gender neutral lavatories and changing facilities are not banned
Single sex toilets / changing with gender neutral if there’s space.

This simply means women and girls have a safe space. Currently they don’t.

Personally I think all buildings over a certain size should be required to have this if they are existing as well. Including shops changing rooms.

I really don’t like single lockable mixed use toilets,( can’t stand the wee all over the floors ). Women only is safer and cleaner.

Not surprised at all
Entitled attitude

So Crystal thinks mixed sex toilets are safer for men than single sex toilets are for women and the only reason women want single sex toilets is because there's a flailing government?

I don't think that silly boy's opinion on what women need is at all relevant to women as it's all about men and Tories as he clearly explained. I'm not sure his anti government rationale for women not being allowed single sex toilets holds much sway at all.

I hate the Tories and women only facilities says man called Crystal.
Flush!

In terms of designing buildings with disabled toilets it’s worth noting that disabled toilets are not just for people with disabilities.
They are for everyone and are designed to accommodate the needs of certain disabilities…..nothing more.

There will be a huge backlash now from MNs, but I’m used to it.
But it is what it is, it’s under this premise that toilet provision is designed and calculated.

Toilets to accommodate disabled people do not come under the same rule of law as disabled parking provision.
You can’t be fined for using a disabled toilet.

Does he hate the Tories because they are pushing for women only facilities.?
So he ll vote Labour because they aren’t? ie Transwomen will vote Labour so they can use women only facilities….blimey…..not something I think Labour would want to be proud about…or maybe they are 😳

That’s true but it’s more just doing the right thing. For example, Many disabled people can’t / shouldn’t have to queue up in a long line like others, their needs are more complex. It’s not just about space.

Crystal needs to visualise a single sex toilet with door gaps where you could see underneath and enough space to climb over the top. And in contrast, a mixed sex toilet without door gaps.

Crystal then needs to visualise what it would look like if a man or boy had had a medical emergency like a heart attack or stroke (more medically likely when in the toilet) or a seizure from drugs and was collapsed on the floor in the cubicle, jamming the inwards facing door shut. In which toilet would the man or boy be safer? To make it easier, which toilet would they be able to be seen and rescued from quickly?

Crystal then needs to think about what may happen if a man got trapped in the toilet because the fully enclosed door had warped due to expansion with all the wetness on the floor. Or if there was a fire and rescuers were checking toilet blocks. Or if a man or boy was pushed or followed in to a private cubicle and sexually assaulted.

In terms of being healthy, Crystal needs to know that it is less easy to clean a fully enclosed cubicle and that ventilation is compromised so airborne viruses are more likely to be caught too. So safety-wise not so great.

Once Crystal thinks about it, hopefully the practicalities of how much more dangerous these toilets are to men will be obvious.

There’s evidence of all the above scenarios (except the door jamming one) happening to men or/and boys in mixed sex, fully enclosed cubicles.

And that’s not even mentioning women.

I think one of the worries is (which I why I posted the link) is that at the time we all could have responded and given actual examples of better design it seems not enough of us did.

And that the Stonewall indoctirnated masses did.

If you look at the figures from the consultation the Tories could have legitimately said there isn't a call for single sex provision!

So it seems, as they did in fact with the GRA consultation when they conveniently dumped a lot of what they said were computer generated responses, they have taken a decision to give more weight to the GC / women's sex based rights responses.

So given that we have missed the change to provide input to types of of toilets and technical detail, we need to be sure that our MPs are willing to vote this through ie make sure that Labour MPs dont Stonewall (in both senses).

Absolutely agree, however the same could be said about a non disabled person desperate for a wee for whatever reason.
Nevertheless I just wanted to point out the often misunderstood issue with accessible toilets

Yes. I think these days doing such online surveys / ‘consultations’ just aren’t valid any more. Stonewall or whoever else has an agenda (Cycle UK..) simply mobilise some sort of takeover on the questionnaires. Which most people probably aren’t aware exist. So the results don’t represent a balanced portion of the population. Quite the opposite. Not sure what the answer is though.

and they don’t exactly advertise their defisions (hitchhikers guide…)

@IwantToRetire I missed the initial consultation. This is cut and pasted from it:

Safety concerns for trans/non-binary people were mentioned in 79% of responses to the call for evidence. Stonewall UK’s LGBT in Britain – Trans Report (2018), was cited in 11,866 responses (67% of all responses). The next most cited report or piece of research, with 115 citations, was a 2013 report by UCLA’s School of Law Williams Institute titled Gendered Restrooms and Minority Stress.

Fewer than 5% of responses mentioned safety concerns for one of the following groups: girls, children, men, disabled people, and boys.

———————

Wherever you stand on the debate, this is a good example of what happens with lobbying. It is very obviously not representative of the population.

Ironically, as I have shown ad nauseam, the type of public toilets the lobbyists so enthusiastically campaigned for, are less safe for everyone. But particularly girls, women and all medically vulnerable people (if they know they are vulnerable or not).

I alerted one major charity about the full consultation (they were not aware of the consultation) but this was very close to the closing date and with big charities it takes a while.

I am really hoping someone takes note of door gap importance for single sex toilets. At the moment the design just omits the ‘full height’ enclosed description used in universal toilets. From experience, the gaps are life-saving. After a bit of research it’s so obvious.

I get that. But I feel awful waltzing out of the disabled toilet looking like I don’t have any issues and there’s someone in a wheelchair waiting outside. People have made comments about me being selfish by using the disabled toilet when I’m not visibly disabled. I feel awful going in when I don’t look disabled, and if it’s locked I feel awful asking for the key.

I much prefer a self contained cubicle with a sink, so I’m not taking up the disabled facility with all of the additional equipment.

As an aside
A lot of people have disabilities that are not obvious. Any disabled person that calls out anyone leaving a disabled facility is completely out of order and I wouldn’t have any problem reminding them of this.

Completely agree. As most people get older and more likely to have health issues or know someone with them, they inevitably will understand.

It's difficult to empty a menstrual cup (a normal female activity) in a cubicle without a sink. If you're lucky you can manage it, but things can go south very quickly. Female-only toilets where a few also have sinks would be the gold standard.

Excuse my ignorance , what are incontinence bins? I hate urinals and only ever used them in extremis. Dodgy prostate hasn't endeared me to them either. Never quite sure when you've finished.

One thing Covid lockdown revealed - there just aren't enough public lavatories anyway. Especially for women.

I guess they are for disposal if inco-pads?

https://prostatecanceruk.org/get-involved/campaigning/incontinence/boys-need-bins#:~:text=Boys%20need%20Bins%20asks%20for,consider%20themselves%20to%20be%20disabled.

It is a shame we couldn’t have all got together and presented our thoughts to Westminster like the men’s charity did.

Thanks, yes, lots of factors there I hadn't considered. Many are less relevant in my office scenario but I do take the point

Thank you so much @Wincher for replying.

Ironically given this thread, an acquaintance unfortunately has recently had a TIA. He was feeling ill at home alone, rushed to the loo, then collapsed. His wife found him when she came back from yoga. She obviously found him as soon as she got in and had wondered why he didn’t reply to her hello. He’s a medical man and previously well so it’s really shaken everyone up but he’s on strong meds and home now.

The problem is when you are ‘out and about’ at work or in town, and feel ill, of course you lock the public toilet door and people may not know you are in there or can access you quick enough if they wonder where you are.

This is why it’s so important to get these toilet regulations right. Nobody gives it much thought (why would they?) until something awful happens. These regulations literally could save lives if they get it right.