I only looked at her LinkedIn and saw a video from a New York university (Columbia) where she sounds American. The ‘community’ ‘inclusive’ roots are American so I did think that it may be relevant as it does seem a stranger concept over here and the references in the uk toilet legislation commissioned document I talked about were all American.
I didn’t realise the hyperlink from the influential Stalled video popped up out of all of my hyperlinks. It’s interesting to see how these American ideas evolved. In it the director talks to Harvard university students about a ‘social justice issue that could be addressed through design innovation’. He says they designed the restroom areas through the ‘queer lens’ of trans inclusivity. If you look at examples, it’s private cubicles off huge open spaces, with communal sinks etc. I think there are some nice ideas like sinks of different heights (which I have seen before here). But even if they were safe, it is impossible to transfer that design to every U.K. situation. If their designs had not been completely enclosed cubicles there would be nothing to take issue with, as they would not have been used as the source of evidence for enclosed designs in our legislation. I doubt they would think one element of their designs would be used in this way either.
These designs are not safe for anyone at crucial moments of vulnerability. They have not been risked assessed. And to use them as a justification for a crucial design element in toilet legislation here, without any discussion, will have tragic consequences.
My focus obviously is safety. Think of the following situations. The first is one of the reasons I campaign for safe toilets.
I was in a nightclub. My friends and I went to the ladies toilets and saw a blue hand, sticking out of a cubicle door gap, on the floor. So we hoisted one of us over the top of door to get into the cubicle, pulled the body away so we could open the door, dragged her out, scooped the sick out her mouth, shook her on her side, she let out a weird noise and started breathing again properly. Once the paramedics arrived we went back clubbing.
Contrast that situation in a mixed sex area with totally enclosed toilets, as they will have to be if they are mixed sex, from October in the UK. No door gaps are specified even in the single sex designs (though it is not specifically stated that single sex must be enclosed). The toilets can all now be opened outwards from the outside (as per legislation). So an improvement of going over the top and having to move the body to open the door. She wasn’t making any noise but, in legislation, the new cubicles have ‘acoustic properties’ so even less of a chance of hearing her if she was trying to cry for help. But the crucial difference is we never would have seen her on the floor. We would have ignored the closed door. She would have been found by the hours later after the nightclub shut.
Now a different scenario of someone hiding in one cubicle and going into another to assault someone. Because there are lots of examples that that is happening now. Contrast the 2 designs from the point of view of what the victim could see and any potential witnesses/ rescuers could see. And how both the designs prevent an assault in the first place (clue: criminals don’t like being seen).
Safety should always override ‘community’ and even total privacy. And every design element should be assessed before legislation.