Shock, horror! Some commercial companies are just getting on with following the EHRC Interim Guidelines

[IwantToRetire]

Please note I am not suggesting this is THE blueprint!

But was taken aback to find that there are some who aren't getting worked up, or taking offence or ... generally having a hissy fit.

So more about tone than every detail.

https://catererlicensee.com/what-are-the-implications-of-the-supreme-court-decision-on-biological-sex-for-the-hospitality-industry/

Nice plain advice for employers and service providers. And ends "By offering gender-neutral options, delivering staff training, engaging in stakeholder consultation, and working with legal advisors the industry can uphold compliance while maintaining a welcoming environment for all staff and customers."

There. That didn't hurt did it?

In fact seems to me that they should offer staff training to the Women and Equality Committee

Isn’t it amazing that for years disabled toilets have been so difficult to sort then this comes along and suddenly a rash of mixed sex toilets get retrofitted in all sorts of unsuitable places just like that. What risk assessments will be done? Because the limited data suggests they are not as safe, just like mixed sex changing rooms.

Is there really a need for extra mixed sex toilets? Very few girls and women who campaign for them even seem to like them after they get fitted and used for any length of time.

The universal toilet design is able to be easily opened from the outside outwards for safety. It has no door gaps and is completely private. It is resistant to sound.

It is not secure. It has been scientifically proven to be dirtier, containing more microbes.

There is so much sex and drugs and illness that go on in public toilets. What could go wrong? The answer is all the things that are the horrible reasons public toilets got shut down over the years.

As for the hospitality industry, pubs and nightclubs are the most common places that women get spiked and start feeling ill. So they head to the loo.

I am not (trying to) have a hissy fit. It’s just having researched toilet safety, I know how this will go.

The only safe toilets for women and men in a nightclub setting are single sex toilets with door gaps. Everyone needs to stick to the toilets of their sex.

This used to be known. In fact British Standards for toilets discussed door gaps directly because of the problems publicans had faced and found remedies for in better cleaning, ventilation, supervision and to prevent ‘wilful misbehaviour’.

Why not contact Ben and let him know your concerns. He looks a sort of earnest young man who would want to get things right.

Because his way is an easy fix. When I have suggested this isn’t (and even shown my data), other people don’t want to be faced with the darker side of human nature.
Same with the Department of Education and schools.

’It won’t happen here’ isn’t safeguarding. In reality, it happens everywhere there’s a private space in a public area.

Reasons for private toilets people have given me: people have sex in loos so make it private for them so people don’t have to see. There should be attendants in toilets looking out of emergencies/assaults/how long people are in each toilet anyway. People will be able to be heard if they collapse to the floor even in a universal design and people will alert venue staff. You can have privacy because heat detectors in cubicles could monitor if people are ok. You can put noise detectors in each cubicle with an intercom system that will activate under certain noises. It doesn’t look as nice for people who want to take photos for social media. If you have gaps under toilets doors, people might steal their stuff.

My most ???!! moment in a toilet discussion: it is discriminatory towards men for it to be made illegal to have sex in a public toilet. That last one was MP Chris Bryant (not to me, it’s in Hansard). He lost. It has been illegal for people to have sex in a public toilet for over 20 years. A government document in 2008 discussed how the law hadn’t changed behaviour in toilets.

My prediction on what will happen:

1. The EHRC will discriminate against disabled people by letting everyone use the ‘accessible’ toilet. This is already happening with the name being changed to accessible. Obviously I realise disabled could also mean ambulant people who need the space and accessibility for bowel conditions etc. The latter people often need the toilet more urgently and having more people going in for ‘wants’ shouldn’t lengthen the wait for others physical and medical needs.
2. More mixed sex universal designs retrofitted into dodgy areas or taking away single sex provision. This discriminates against women, children, people with invisible disabilities, elderly, people with religious beliefs who only use single sex facilities.
3. Some of these new universal toilets will become notorious for things that happen in them. Eventually they will be shut. Hopefully not too many vulnerable people are harmed before then.
4. Women will still get men going into the ladies but we can tell men to get out. Obviously this also has the downside of women being refused mens toilets when the queue is too long (which technically it should). It will be women’s fault when women complain there not being enough loos.

In the past, it was suggested by a hospitality-related industry that cubicles should be made as small as possible as a deterrent for people having sex in them. Cubical sizes historically have also been based on the amount of space needed for men to face forwards and have a wee.

Apologies to be a bit jaded by people who think the answer is more mixed sex, private toilets. Why does toilet cubicle design have to be dictated by male behaviour (sex, voyeurism, want to be in the ladies toilet etc) anyway? Men can’t even work out that you should position a sanitary bin in a women’s cubicle before you place where the toilet goes.

This isn’t a dig at anyone in particular btw, it’s me after a glass of wine and a long day then looking at more data which shows what’s been happening.

Caterer, Licensee and Hotelier News website says in the Footer, "Contributions are welcome".

You obviously know what you are talking about, you write clearly and you have an opportunity to influence the hospitality industry - and more if you strike while the iron is hot. Go for it! 💪

https://catererlicensee.com/contact-us/

Or you could contact the author of the article:

Ben Stepney, Partner in the Employment team at Thomson Snell & Passmore
https://ts-p.co.uk/contact-us/

(As an aside, apparently they are the oldest law firm in operation!)

I understand how important this is to you but having single sex plus unisex provision is about respecting people’s differences whilst keeping the majority of toilets in the safest possible design.

Added to say I’ve just seen your later post. I agree with most of what you have said. I just think being realistic we need additional (not instead of) unisex provision because trans and non-binary people are not going to disappear and it’s the most reasonable way to balance everyone’s rights.

@IwantToRetire what a sensible and clear article. It’s really not that complicated.

People don’t become safer because it’s their preferred design. I want everyone to be safe.

What a clear piece of advice! Well done him.

The point is most of us have seen your many posts about toilets. Unfortunately, although I am sure we would make a good job of it, FWR are not in the position of implementing the changes.

So surely it is a better use of your time to make your comments to those who are decision makers.

And as i said in the OP, I posted as much because the tone of the article showed no one needs to have a melt down.

And compated to all the others having meltdowns is a small shard of light.

But quite seriously, Ben seems like a very sensible young man.

And I am sure if you contacted him as one reasonable person to another he might be willing to learn from what you have to say.

Oh I hear you.

I got algorithmed on FB yesterday by a Buddhist account (with 3million followers)

The post simply said:

Ignoring red flags because you want to 'see the good in people' will cost you later. This speaks to the danger of overlooking warning signs in someone's behavior or character simply because you're hopeful, empathetic, or overly trusting.

It's absolutely spot on.

Material reality always gets you in the end.

When I posted this yesterday I also started a thread about Islington council have a hissy fit about the interim guidelines, and that thread got overwhelmed with about how organisations will have to challenge, blah, blah, blah, blah.

So if that thought process is common amongst those who have been Stonewalled, even though Ben seems so nice and sensible, and would probably hate to have to do this, have had an idea that some sort of sign needs to be put up. ie

"We expect customers and employees to observe the law ie you should be aware of the law that affirmds that biological sex defines male and female and not put pressure on the work place / catering outlet to have to monitor behaviour. ie if you cant be honest and respect the law this work place / catering outlet is not for you."

I am sure that some signage will be needed but I would be inclined to go for something more like this (just a draft off the top of my head), eg. for a women's changing room:

🚺

We provide both sex-segregated and unisex facilities.

🚺 Women's Changing Room 🚺

• This Changing Room is for females only.

• Children: Boys under the age of 8 are allowed.

• Management reserve the right to remove anyone else using this Changing Room.

• Harassment of staff and other customers will not be tolerated and may be reported to the Police.

• Please report any issues promptly to Reception Staff or Security.

• Safeguarding women, children and vulnerable adults is our top priority.

Thank you for your cooperation, please leave these facilities as you would hope to find them and, most of all, enjoy your time here with us.

-----

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Equality Act 2010
UK Supreme Court, 16 April 2025

Well that is nice, but will be open to (deliberate) misinterpretation at the first line!

"sex-segregated" means all those who say sex and gender are the same thing will say as I indentify as a female the women's toilets are for me!

Your sign may have to have (in large print) a footnote saying what the word sex means.

I think anyone who knows why that signage is needed will understand very well what it means. 😎

I also think that most members of the public are probably still unaware of this situation and would find it very weird and off-putting to see signage on a Changing Room that includes a definition of "sex", ie. biological sex.

IMHO it doesn't matter what definitions are provided there will inevitably be some characters who are determined to misinterpret or disagree.

What I would hope is that a clear statement of how management intends to deal with any issues will provide a deterrent to anyone thinking of acting on any possible "misunderstandings" (ahem!)

EDIT TO ADD: if you can think of anything that helps, please say. I am wondering now if it might be helpful to say something about "gender identities" and GRCs, ie. rather than adding a definition of sex.

I don't know about campaigning for extra unisex toilets. But my workplace has an assortment of facilities including some single-user toilets (not many) which are each labelled for either "men" or "women" and none of them are unisex. In my view those could be reasonably rebadged as unisex. There would still be plenty of single-sex cubicle-style toilets with shared basins, and it wouldn't affect the accessible facilities either. I'm not sure why my employer hasn't done that already but I don't want to risk opening a can of worms by asking!

I agree, the solution is not a one size fits all as it depends on the current configuration/provision, the number of employees, whether or not there are service users and if it is feasible, appropriate and cost effective to alter the fabric of the building.

In the example you use keeping cubicle toilets as single sex and converting lockable single person usage toilets to unisex makes sense.

As we now know Portcullis House has male, female, unisex (gender neutral), accessible and changing places toilets. There is no reason new buildings couldn’t be required to adopt this approach.

What is wonderful on this board we can have discussions that have helped formulate ideas and arguments on safety and helped my research into things I previously wouldn’t have put so much thought into. The power of women being able to chat openly with lots of different experiences is what’s great about mumsnet. There are also people on these boards that are in positions of influence.

I am taking lots of women’s experiences, mainly from the U.K., and looking through police reports, local newspaper articles around the country, FOIs, UK legislation, Hansard entries, toilet building regulations, spiking websites, sexual assault websites, YouTube, architect articles, education reports, academic articles, medical reports, disability statistics, disability websites and discussions.

Private, lockable, secure cubicles sounds lovely solution to most (including the EHRC) until you realise there’s no such thing, as men use the essential safety systems to overide the toilet door lock to attack unsuspecting women or children. And I have multiple verified examples of where this has happened. I also know this will an underestimate because incidents don’t get reported in the first place. The venue certainly won’t want anything published. The police may get it into the local papers but it won’t be logged in crime records necessarily as being in a toilet. It certainly wont be logged in any central database as I have checked and it doesn’t exist. Unless it comes up on a google search or police do log the location and then someone does an FOI for local police and the police agree it won’t take too many man hours so do give an answer. Deaths and near-misses in toilets also lack a database.

I have a lot of recent data from schools.

Scenario:
A new school has all mixed sex toilets. This is approved and praised for being inclusive (inclusive in these terms just is shorthand for mixed sex) and announced as such. It is approved as having met regulations as being all unisex and private (this interestingly doesn’t appear to need to include sinks in the cubicle to be approved). Immediately the problem becomes apparent to parents when their children start coming home talking about what’s happening. The school deny this. The parents get frustrated and complain to the press. There are incidents of sex in cubicles, the toilets being smelly and filthy for girls, boys mucking about with sanitary pads or bins etc, standing outside cubicles and banging on the doors, guessing which girl is on her period. Some boys and girls try and create girl toilets and boy toilets within this system. The school restricts the times the children can go in because of vandalism and drug taking/ vaping. Teachers have to monitor the toilets more and restrict pupils going in lessons. Some girls go to shop toilets nearby at lunchtimes or avoid going to school. Then something traumatic happens. Either an alleged serious sexual assault that then is one that makes it to the press (very few do) or a death inside the cubicle and by the time they get the child out, cpr being unsuccessful. The school, council and parents understandably don’t want many details in the press.

You can sometimes follow the timeline of stories backwards in a local paper.

Next scenario: the school has single sex toilets and adds a toilet ‘identified as gender neutral’ to each floor of the secondary school. This is most relevant to the OP article. It is also relevant to English schools as this quote is what has been added to the most recent DfE design brief. These toilets will be private and sound resistant. I don’t have so much information to go on in this country as these designs ideas appear to come straight from an activist group in America.

The feedback from those who want to use the ‘gender-neutral’ toilet on each level, is these toilets are where children go to have sex. They are the dirtiest, smelliest toilets in the school. Children go in them to vape and take drugs. There are incidents of poo spreaders in there. CCTV goes up. Children complain they are being singled out because they are different. If they are not ‘out’ and then everyone, especially teachers, know they are. Anyone can go in them and they want them just for people who don’t want to be their sex. Their loos are disgusting compared to the others. They have to wait longer as the previous occupants take longer in them and so they get ‘tardy’ reports. Their toilets are closed more as they have to be repaired/cleaned. Teachers have to spend more time on duty.

The child then has a dilemma. Do they stick to confirming their toilet designated for them or use the more pleasant single sex toilets. Of course in America, the normal single sex school toilets have huge gaps compared to this country so I have to note this. But the girls/young women on both sides of the Atlantic are the ones that I am hearing from having that dilemma in schools and nightclubs.

It’s safer for them not to be given this dilemma in the first place. It’s safer and healthier for everyone not to be using private toilets, particularly mixed sex toilets. There is at least one rape in a U.K. school per school day - where in the school are these taking place? Obviously I haven’t found the dataset on this either as it doesn’t exist. The examples I have found are a store cupboard and toilets.

The analysis from the EHRC will be interesting. I have been listening and collating data and this seems generally to be the trend: Men who use women’s toilets don’t want ‘gender-neutral’ toilets, they want women’s toilets. Men who don’t use women’s toilets think it is a solution to have ‘gender neutral’ toilets. Women say they want them for others but - it depends if they regularly use them, what context and if they have an invisible disability. Girls and younger women who use them may realise the problems but find it difficult to speak out because it goes against their beliefs.

I have noted some older men have been vocal on how much they like a private and sound resistant toilet for a long sit down in peace with their phone. They are bothered about others noticing them and hearing them poo. Ironically if they had a medical emergency they would be safer in a single sex loo with door gaps so people could see immediately they were in trouble. The process of elimination in that ‘long sit down’ due to Valsalva Maneuver and cardiac strain is a reason 11% of cardiac arrests happen on the toilet.

There’s a theory called bounded rationality that probably applies here. Our country is going to end up with new, private, mixed sex toilets that will be creating more problems than they are solving just because it feels like it’s the quick and easy fix.