@IwantToRetire I agree Kemi Badenoch comes across as very pragmatic.
This is why I was so frustrated that she did not get asked my question because if you look at the practicalities of what the toilet designs are, that her department oversaw last year, it has made things worse for everyone at their most vulnerable. I don’t think she has a grasp on it because during the general election she used a card from a woman who had been attacked in toilets, discussing how they would be voting for her because of her work on single sex toilets. If she understood the design practicalities of what has now been introduced (more enclosed toilets, more chances for a perpetrator to hide, less visibility for a victim to be aware, easily openable cubicles, hidden cubicles for a witness-less environment), I think she would close the loophole.
Kemi Badenoch talked about civil servants and her views but what she didn’t discuss was the failings of the alternative- a private company, ARUP, that the government commissioned to look at design of toilets. ARUP failed in their remit. It’s a huge report p.171 pages but it omits so much.
There is no mention of menorrhagia which surely should be mentioned? Periods are only referenced in relation to transmen. The toilet is centred in some designs so the sanitary bin is an afterthought and squashed in one side. There is not even a mention of the common long term conditions of diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions and brain injuries and the fact that, for the thousands and thousands of people who collapse each year, that that is the major safety reason why toilet doors have always had gaps at the bottom. However they do have lots of discussions on urinal heights including: It should be noted that male crotch height, while likely to encompass a majority of urinal users, does not necessarily account for the height of trans and non-binary users, or people who have undergone gender reassignment surgery. There is no large-scale anthropometric study indicating the anthropometric dimensions of trans and non-binary groups, or the prevalence of use of urinals for these groups (p.85).
They did no research or analysis on the effects of enclosing toilets. In the ARUP document, the justification (evidence and literature) for recommending fully enclosed toilets comes an American opinion article referenced on p.129 of the 171 page report. The reason: ‘A better solution, supported by many transactivists, and increasingly found in trendy nightclubs and restaurants, is to eliminate gender-segregated facilities entirely and treat the public restroom as one single open space with fully enclosed stalls.’
This enclosed design is then transferred to single sex toilets and ambulant toilet designs without justification.
ARUP have recently been given lots of awards by Stonewall. Absolutely look at everyone’s needs but they didn’t do the job Kemi Badenoch’s department told them to do: ‘to carry out research into the requirements of the population of England in the built environment, in particular disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. The ultimate purpose of the research is to provide data to inform future policy and guidance, in particular an update to Approved Document M (ADM) of the Building Regulations.’
The frustration is the loopholes could so easily be fixed. Everyone is more vulnerable if they go to an enclosed toilet and have a medical emergency or are trapped in there with someone who means them harm.