Mixed sex toilets at conference

[TheAmpleGreyMoose]

Work conference today and toilets are marked with diagram for male and female. Inside are sinks for all to use with toilet cubicles, ceiling to floor walls/door and lockable. I’ve not felt comfortable to use them after seeing a man exiting pulling up the fly on his trousers and for fear I’ll meet my senior/male boss in there.
I know the recent SC ruling isn’t all about toilets yet I’m wondering what, if any, reason I have to complain?
Grateful for your advice.

Did all the cubicles have sanitary bins?

It is if you have to share sinks and be in an intimate space with men. I've seen enough men not lock the door, not shut the door, not zip up properly..in these spaces.

I have also been to a conference with shared sinks in unisex toilets. White big Belfast sinks, with several taps and one long basin. I was one of a handful of women at the event and loads of men. I had my period. I had blood on my hands. I had to wash them next to men I was networking with professionally. It was mortifying.

@WomanXXWorldsOriginsofMothersofAllNations
I wasn’t looking for one so didn’t see one. I’ll ask someone else tomorrow.

If you think I’ve got that wrong just say so, instead of the pass-agg “do you have a link” rubbish.

I would complain.

as someone who’s had terrible toileting issues in the past due to heavy periods and birth trauma, I think mixed sex washing facilities are horrendous.

I’ve been a long time lurker and was propelled into creating an account today after this odd bathroom situation.
I value all the contributions made to this thread.
Off to bed now and look forward to catching up tomorrow.

It’s because men are a safety risk for women and that is why there are boundaries - and why men are wanting to try to erode boundaries

I’m sick to death of women being shamed for wanting to have boundaries

and yes this. Or imagine if you’d had a period flood.

going to the toilet is an intimate bodily function. Lots of men are pervs. Therefore women in any stage of the process of going to the bathroom and potentially pervy men should not be combined. It’s not complicated. Ask yourself who benefits from
this - and you’ll find the answer is pervy men

Not true, this is only guidance for new buildings. Old buildings with mixed sex toilets can have shared sinks.

I think you’ve got it wrong, but I don’t think I’m infallible so I was asking for your source instead of just arguing with you. I see why it comes across as passive aggressive but I was genuinely trying to leave space for a conversation where I could be wrong, not just trying to shut you down.

We have mixed toilets at work for shared offices. I wouldn’t mind self contained cubicles with a sink, but I don’t like standing washing my hands whilst John from HR is taking a leak as he is so tall it’s a wonder you can’t hear his pee hitting the water miles away.
Or being in there when Barry from IT is doing one of his signature bakes in cubicle 3.
They also have those awful toilet roll dispensers that are like trying to pull toilet paper out of a cat’s arsehole, you cannot get enough paper with one grab and it’s annoying ripping off those bits of paper.

So sorry I am not qualified to say!

And partly because as I understand it the conference wasn't in a building run by your employer.

So was thinking more as others have said, that your employer in booking the venue they did, didn't take into account the type of provision in that venue. It did it provide the same type of toilet provision as they do in the building their employees ie you work.

Maybe you could use that as your yardstick.

ie why would they expect their employees to accept something lesser. That you would expect them to provide to the same lever at an event run by them.

And if in future they cant guarantee that equivilance they should advise those attending in advance who may want to opt out because of lack of suitable provision.

Just a thought.

A few years ago I attended a sports event at a leisure centre that had labelled the main changing rooms with symbols that no-one was clear on. The sport involves costume changes and there were dozens of kids aswell as adults. After about two hours of awkwardness someone made a female label and a male label and blu-tacked them over the confusing ones.

This is almost exactly what I was going to write.

Google is your friend

Sanitary conveniences
20.—(1) Suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences shall be provided at readily accessible places.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), sanitary conveniences shall not be suitable unless—
(a)the rooms containing them are adequately ventilated and lit;
(b)they and the rooms containing them are kept in a clean and orderly condition; and
(c)separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.
(3) It shall be sufficient compliance with the requirement in paragraph (1) to provide sufficient sanitary conveniences in a workplace which is not a new workplace, a modification, an extension or a conversion and which, immediately before this regulation came into force in respect of it, was subject to the provisions of the Factories Act 1961, if sanitary conveniences are provided in accordance with the provisions of Part II of Schedule 1.

Washing facilities
21.—(1) Suitable and sufficient washing facilities, including showers if required by the nature of the work or for health reasons, shall be provided at readily accessible places.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), washing facilities shall not be suitable unless—
(a)they are provided in the immediate vicinity of every sanitary convenience, whether or not provided elsewhere as well;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/20#:~:text=Sanitary%20conveniences-,20.,provided%20at%20readily%20accessible%20places.&text=(c)separate%20rooms%20containing%20conveniences,of%20being%20secured%20from%20inside.

And the employer has the legal duty to provide SS block provision or single unit provision.
The employer booking a work place without the SSP is the employer creating the discrimination case.

And if an employer can be sued for misconduct at a pissup in the local pub long after work hours they will be liable for a work duty event.

If an employer could opt out of H&S by stating they were only renting the space most work spaces would end up having no light heat or water as a "cost saving measure".

@AnSolas You may be interested to see this from the Good Law Project that just been linked in another thread:
‘However, the specific law governing toilets, changing rooms and strip searches is not contained in the Equality Act itself, but in different sets of regulations, like the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the School Premises (England) Regulations. The definition of “biological sex” does not automatically read into this law.’

This is just gobbledegook but leads to the type of confusion that firms will be under.

Excuse the french but that "logic" is a big pile of shit which should be an ethics and bringing the profession into disrepute issue with any organisation they claim to be a member of.

One reason the TRA are having a meltdown is because it confirms a legal principle of how meanings are established/interpreted and the next SC ruling would have to unpick the logic of how the word woman (=human of the female sex ) was actually ment to mean most women and these men over here.

But the principle of independence of Acts crosses over in a way TRAs wont be happy with. If a SC ruling on another Act (not the EA) was that the word woman/girl/female was unclear the court can not magic up women/girl/female to mean Sex and GR because the GRA/EA exists. It as far as I am aware can only void the section/Act

And nobody with a basic understanding of the UK's language and culture is that stupid that they cant work out that when women and men are split into 2 groups for separate provision its based in sex not feelings. If an organisation is unsure try get a written legal opinion with a assurance that the issuer will cover all the costs of any legal action.

Its easy to gamble with other peoples money.

It’s bizarre. I just don’t get why this focus and effort - can you imagine if all that time and money went into protecting disabilities? They could do some real good work.

I’d ask the organisers how Hijabi women are supposed to use the toilet and adjust their hijab

I don't get how they can be marked as some being for men and some being for women, and then (if I'm reading it right) one room with sinks for everyone.

They also have those awful toilet roll dispensers that are like trying to pull toilet paper out of a cat’s arsehole

I can't unsee this 🤣

I thought unisex cubicles had to include a sanitary bin and washbasin?
If there were no basins in the cubicle you could feedback that it made uncomfortable as nowhere to wash hands in private? Or wash anything else given as examples on this sort of thread.

The National Portrait Gallery in London has this set-up; loos off one side of a corridor, floor-to-ceiling doors and (I think; I haven't been for a little while) sanitary bins in the cubicle, but you have to come out and wash hands at shared sinks. Everybody in there always looks deeply uncomfortable.

Or being in there when Barry from IT is doing one of his signature bakes in cubicle 3.

Gross, but also

Me either