‘Ms Russell says that in discrimination, the discriminator takes away the ability of somebody to make those choices by treating somebody less well because of their protected characteristic.
"This is why all of these pieces of legislation aimed at protecting vulnerable groups were enacted.
"The result of this is that somebody's life is shaped not by the choices that they make, which are informed by their underlying values of dignity and autonomy, but by the prejudice of someone else.
"That is what is happening here. Dr Upton's life is being shaped not by the choices that she makes, but by the prejudices of somebody else."’
Lives? What’s happening here is that of the actual lives of the most vulnerable people are being put at more risk by gender ideology, by design.
Newer ’inclusive’ toilets have already cost lives. Just having ‘inclusive’ toilet designs is discrimination against those who are medically vulnerable, women and children. Having more inclusive designs also put them at risk.
I am trying to work out where they are going with the toilet argument. Robin Moira White who wrote on the translucent website, wants to be in the women’s. This is the typical preference for a man who doesn’t want to use the men’s. Robin calls unisex ones ‘ghettos’ but conversely says they can be useful for those in ‘early stages’ - both are apparently needed. This makes all toilets mixed sex.
In contrast, most women who don’t want to use the women’s typically don’t want to use the men’s either. They (and their parents) often protest for ‘gender neutral’. Then girls/women get nervous about using them. So they want mixed sex and sometimes women’s. It is more unusual for them to prefer men’s.
It terms of regulations and British Standards etc they don’t even make sense if the terms men and women aren’t used correctly.
Ever wondered why the cubicle is so tiny? Answers are because historically the cubicles were based on men’s - it was made as small as possible to prevent more than one person being in it (for sex) and was based round the dimensions a man would need to wee. No thought was given to a sanitary bin placement (even now) so it brushes against your leg. They were still far more men’s public toilets than women’s up until a few decades ago when they all started getting shut in large numbers anyway.
The gaps we have above and below doors and partitions are there for health and safety. Safety - to make sure anyone collapsing or needing help will be seen. It also prevents ‘wilful misbehaviour’ happening in the first place (sex, drug use, sleeping rough, vandalism). Criminals don’t like witnesses. Also for health as floors can be soaked and mopped thoroughly without build up. Ventilation is also much better with door gaps and pathogen load is reduced. All scientifically proven.
You do not get door gaps in mixed sex toilets or single sex toilets where it is mixed sex in front of the cubicle doors. Privacy overides health and safety concerns when it’s mixed sex or ambiguous.
In document T the only toilets that can have door gaps are single sex toilets. So why is it that increasingly we don’t have toilet door gaps in ‘single sex’ toilet blocks now? It’s because of voyeurism (male behaviour) and because there’s no challenge for men coming into female toilets. This is why this case is important. It provides the ability for women to confidently say no, even if their employer is wavering.
This recent trend for single sex toilet cubicles in blocks being private is a gift for those who want to engage in ‘wilful misbehaviour’ including men setting up cameras and men leading or pushing children/women into cubicles.
Who is most at risk in a toilet? All of us if we are having a medical emergency, people having a mental health crisis, drug users, people with invisible disabilities (inc epilepsy, diabetes), women and children. The group least at risk are healthy men.
In these private toilets there have been rapes, deaths and cameras placed inside. This involves toilets in places where you would expect children to be safe and places where defibrillators could have been used in time if you knew someone had collapsed.
What is worst is that private designs are often given the name ‘inclusive’. They are not and their origins are not from a health and safety perspective. It’s from the male gaze and trans ideology.
These are two articles from two influential American designers of gender-neutral toilets, whose work is ‘evidence’ for ‘inclusive’ design for many schools, public buildings and even a government-funded U.K. public toilet consultation for people with long term health conditions:
Susan Stryker: https://aaa.org.hk/en/like-a-fever/like-a-fever/on-stalling-and-turning-a-wayward-genealogy-for-a-binary-abolitionist-public-toilet-project/type/essays
Joel Sanders: https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/profiles-and-interviews/interview-with-joel-sanders
These ‘inclusive’ designs have NOT been analysed in-situ (Sanders admitted this in Spring 2024). Their two opinions why safety is ‘improved’ are that more people (‘good’ people?) will be around the private toilets to notice and that an adult and a child of different sex can go in together. I can give lots of examples of where these designs have had tragic outcomes.
One point that keeps coming up is that mixed sex toilet doors are able to be locked and secured. This isn’t as you may expect ‘locked and secured’ to mean, for all new and refurbished toilet cubicles and rooms, for life saving reasons. For building regs (health and safety) you need to be able to quickly open the door outwards from the outside. If it’s an inwards opening toilet door that means it needs a mechanism to change that. This is because so many people collapse behind a locked door as it’s where people go when they feel ill and also holding your breath and pushing can lead problems like a cardiac arrest (11% of CA are on the loo). There are millions with heart conditions. So you are never going to be totally ‘secure’ in a toilet cubicle that complies with building regs because you’ll always be accessible for your own safety. However it is much safer if you are able to be seen on the floor of the cubicle asap as it will affect your chances of survival. Mixed sex toilets, the universal design, is supposed to be ‘sound resistant’ which also can compromise safety too and one that has been exploited by men.
The door gaps (over and under doors and partitions) enable you to judge who is around you and listening before you leave the cubicle and give you warning if they attempt to come in. No need for fancy ventilation systems, lots of lights or monitors in toilet cubicles mean it’s easier to judge if there’s a suspicious camera in there.
There is a very strong argument for the best health and safety design in out-of-home toilets, with the amount of crime and illness that happens in them. This means single sex toilets with door gaps.
That’s why the Supreme Court judgement has the ability to save lives and prevent assaults. It means single sex toilets can get their best designs back for health and safety. It means men should use men’s toilets, women should use women’s toilets and when out and about, children should go to the toilet of the sex of their adult carer. I would love to see more single sex accessible toilets within a single sex block so people needing these toilets can get the benefits of the best single sex toilet design too.
If Ms Russell wants to talk more about vulnerable groups and toilets, I am happy to show her my research. I want everyone to be safe. But she’s barking up the wrong tree with her current argument. She is arguing against health and safety.