Toilets query

[Shells]

I'm hoping the hive mind will help me untangle this argument at work. I know there is a toilet specialist! We have two self contained and lockable rooms. Previously labelled m and f. The male room has a washbasin, toilet in a cubicle and urinal. The female has a wash basin and toilet and also doubles as disabled. We've had requests to make the toilets gender neutral, but also requests from some women requesting to keep the female toilet. So we compromised by keeping the f but making the m unisex. We're a heavily female workforce so that one is much less used anyway. There has now been a complaint that a) we're discriminating against men as they don't have their own toilet and b) trans identified people won't find the previously male toilet neutral because of the urinal. Sigh. Any thoughts on legal position here?

This isn't applicable to your situation as each toilet is single occupancy. It's only for shared spaces where the presence of e.g a transman who presents as a man might make some women feel unsafe.

You have two options here:
a) leave as male and female and trans people will just have to suck it up and use the facilities for their bio sex.
b) make both mixed sex.

You will not be required to provide a third facility as that would be impractical.

No. OP needs to follow the H&S regs.

They can use the toilets of their own sex. They are fully enclosed so they can't even argue the 'safe' thing can they?

Ah so this is really back to how things were. Can't you put a notice on the "Gents" saying that TW are welcome in this one?

You see this is how difficult it is! If you have a male with a physical disability that needs the disabled toilet that is labelled ‘women’ then it makes it mixed sex. You have to make reasonable adjustments for those with disabilities.

It really depends on who uses the toilets and if they are for customers as well.

Ironically it’s the privacy that makes both of these toilets equally unsafe. I don’t think you can say one is less safe than the other unless the cubicle is private in the urinal area.

Common sense would be women and men, how it was, if there are no men who physically need the space of the disabled toilet.

If people are unhappy about using facilities according to sex, they will need to campaign to have the law changed, as that is what the law stipulates.

Can I jump on here and ask the toilet experts. I work in a community hall, and we are currently applying for a grant to renovate and we want to get the toilets right. We currently have two cubicles with a shared single sink designated Ladies. One of these is labelled as "Disabled" and it is a larger cubicle with a pull down bar but it is not up to standard. Also im aware with having the Disabled in the ladies is not acceptable for disabled men. We also have a separate toilet through another door currently labeled gents. I think the best plan is to take the two cubicles out of the Ladies, create one high standard Unisex toilet, with sink and a baby change (which we don't currently have), and redesignate the current gents as a staff/volunteer toilet (we have 3 part time staff and a few volunteers)
Our chair of trustees thinks that not right and we now need to have Ladies, Gents and unisex.
Can someone let me know what the best configuration would be (assuming we grt the grant of course)

Unisex is fine as long as its a fully enclosed toilet with sink.

Ladies, gents and unisex/accessible would seem to be the obvious solution. Or ladies, gents, unisex and accessible if you can stretch to four.

'separate facilities for men and women, except where each toilet is in a separate room lockable from the inside'

Yes, but noting a 'room' has specific stipulations in building regs, too. It's not a cubicle.

Legally I have no idea, but if it's legal to have a disabled toilet for both sexes within a male or female bathroom (which it is), then it really makes no sense that a trans person can't use the toilet they want? Like there's something strange about people being ok with a man or woman who identifies as a man or women but has a medical condition (which may not be visible) going into the opposite toilet, then why it not ok for a man or woman who thinks they are the opposite one going in to what they see as their "rightful" toilet and we see as their "wrong" toilet?

A community hall is a work place and a public place.

So what is the law for the workplace

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/20

You have an obligation to make provision for staffing by either sex with a disabiliy too

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/25A

So why do you wish to split the toilet provision between staff and others?

Is there a food prep area in the hall?

Whats the total capacity of the space as the headcount dictates units
https://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/toilets.htm

What are the extra needs of the people who use the space and what will the community use the space for in the future.

Is there space to expand the provision?

And it needs to be labelled as such.

It's not legal to have a mixed sex accessible toilet in the women's toilets.
As such the rest of your argument fall down flat

if it's legal to have a disabled toilet for both sexes within a male or female bathroom (which it is)

No, it isn't.

Thanks for all your responses, esp to @AnSolas above.
I know our provision is not adequate at the moment, it is an old listed building and the disabled access is not adequate, hence we are applying for the grant to improve it. But changing anything requires jumping through all kinds of hoops and I only work 12 hours a week there (I have two jobs)

In answer to a couple of questions - 3 part time staff (inc me), various volunteers (8-10), hall can hold about 40 but rarely at capacity.
The current Ladies (with one standard cubicle, and one larger "Disabled" and a shared sink) is small, grotty and an odd shape. Something needs doing with it desperately, it's quite embarrassing. We can't make it bigger and it isn't big enough to create two separate rooms big enough for one to be an adequate accessible cubicle
The current Gents is a small single self contained room, down a corridor - also can't be made bigger.

My other (main) job is uber woke and totally captured. Mixed toilets in all our sites and we have 50+ employees. I work in HR. I am just bracing for fallout while managers send out their "We stand by our LBGTQ++++++ colleagues" emails.
I've got an interview for another job next week

It sounds like you would be best advised seeking the advice of an architect, WelshBookWitch.

I agree with ArabellaScott that you need professional help.

Seeing as its community space in a listed building I would seek some free advice from the local builder /architect about rejiging the space or building more space. Its likely that the community has someone who can work out what can be done and where its cheaper to dig foundations etc on the back of an enveolpe basis before spending fees on a "proper" plan.

OP, you have 3 questions that need to be dealt with: sex discrimination, gender reassignment discrimination, disabled access.

Looking at them separately, and bearing in mind you don't have time or budget for renovations.

Disabled access must be available to both sexes. Only one loo has it. Therefore loo 1 is already mixed sex.

Sex discrimination. You have 1 mixed sex loo and 1 other loo. If that other loo is men only, you are giving the men more facilities than women. That's not allowed, so loo 2 has to be mixed sex as well.

Does loo 2 meet the requirements for a mixed sex loo? If the cubicle and urinal can be used separately at the same time, then it is not single occupancy. So it cannot legally be mixed sex.

To meet the requirements it must be a single occupancy room. This requirement can be met by adding a lock to the outside door, so it is used by only 1 person at a time. As it will be used by women, it also needs a sanitary bin. That should be possible even without a renovation budget.

Finally, if you have 2 mixed sex loos, do all people with the PC of gender reassignment have somewhere they can use? The default is they use the provision for their sex. There are 2 single-occupancy mixed-sex loos. They can use either. No discrimination. The fact there is a urinal in there is irrelevant, because it is now single occupancy so nobody will be using the urinal when they are in there. It has no more relevance than whether or not there's an aspidistra.

The only legal solution, within your constraints: add a sanitary bin and external door lock to the gents, make both mixed sex, single occupancy.

Hypothetical. If both units were accessible, so disabled people could use either, you could have 2 single-sex accessible loos. In this case all trans people would use the facility for their sex. The Supreme Court decision pointed out that women who pass as men could sometimes be excluded from female provision if their presence would cause alarm or distress to female users (clause 28). But the female loo would be single occupancy, so a transman wouldn't be using it at the same time as another woman, wouldn't cause distress, not excluded, no need for separate provision.

Obviously if there’s a refurb then Document T (2024) is the one to follow. It will be interesting to see what the next edition of this says.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67167c02d100972c0f4c9b38/ADT_2024.pdf

I'd take issue with your "Nobody will be using the urinal".
I'd like to think - personally would insist - that if the urinal stayed, then men would use it rather than spraying the toilet!

The point is that nobody will be using it at the same time as a woman or a trans identified man who hates urinals is in the cubicle. Men are free to use it when they are alone in the room, and I would expect most would do so without additional instruction.