Hello OP I was catching up with the thread in the early hours and began wondering if you are connected to the Good Law Project in any way. If so, firstly I was aghast at the several reports over several months telling of the rude response Mrs Maugham got to being in the swimming pool changing rooms naked. I was shocked another woman would be so rude to her - I certainly wouldn't and everyone here also thought it was unusual on a previous thread.
Her whole encounter sounded a bit odd though not least because of the timelines reported and unusual responses and later reactions. I have looked back now and the phrase later used by Mr Maugham was ‘dignity and protection’ rather than your ‘privacy and dignity’. However, like others have said, the tone seems odd here too.
There is a lack of evidence of women getting violent towards men or women in women’s so now there’s dignity with privacy left to discuss. In the often quoted Stonewall report there was one incidence of pushing by two women trying to get a man out of the ladies because shouting wasn’t working. The rest is verbal abuse ie telling people they don’t belong in there. I understand this is upsetting but, in contrast, in my research I am looking at how toilet design affects deaths, injuries, health and assaults. You can’t please everyone so rules are made to rightly put safety higher than complete privacy. That’s shown in the exceptions for article 8.
You said in a later post you have been to this setting about 20 times and always use a cubicle anyway, which you prefer, so you were effectively complaining about the single sex area in front of the cubicle and that is was, for you, a similar experience to a mixed sex space.
I think the Good Law Project is probably trying to work out what to argue for when they go back to court because last time it was reported that the Judge asked them what they wanted and they couldn’t articulate it. Unfortunately the group they represent want different things so it makes it difficult for them. I wrote a post before offering to discuss my research as I have looked into solutions.
Regardless of your intentions, I am going to take a punt and predict the Good Law Project will now argue for everyone to have individual private mixed sex cubicles for changing rooms and toilets with a mixed sex area in front. This is something a pp picked up with your post and got me thinking. This would suit the Maughams and it appears you, too. In my research it is women and the families of the women who are more likely to want private mixed sex cubicles as a solution to the women not wanting to use the women's. However the GLP also have to consider the wants of men who want to use women's spaces and don’t like mixed sex so that may cause a bit of friction for those who want that who have donated. Very few seem to want to use men's facilities!
Putting everyone into completely private, individual cubicles doesn't work. This is due to health (hygiene, ventilation, pathogen load, cleaning) and safety (prevention of wilful misuse such as vandalism, assaults and hidden camera placement, supervision in emergencies, occupant awareness of others in surroundings) as well as economic and environmental reasons. Remember they can't be 'secure' as you imagine 'locked' to be for safety reasons. Toilet cubicles, for example, need to be open easily from the outside. It is there in black and white in Document T (2024). It's particularly useful for the Good Law Project to recognise the conflict between complete privacy and safeguarding the occupant.
The number one call out for the Fire Brigade in London is accessing a person who has collapsed and is trapped behind a door. From scientific research it has been shown 11% of cardiac arrests happen on the toilet. From the Heart Foundation, there are millions of people with unknown heart disease. These are a few facts on why it makes sense that design should factor in a degree of visibility. Especially when there are defibrillators that could save people’s lives if they are used quickly enough because you can see someone has collapsed.
If you want to know why mixed sex cubicles don't work in leisure centres, the Women's Rights Network is doing some work on this at the moment. Look them up.
Voyeurism is obviously a big problem as the cubicles often really do need gaps from floor to door/partition as the chlorine can rot the partitions and pool water can't drain away. Active voyeurism (cameras hidden in cubicles or used less often over cubicles) is a male activity.
I have been collating data to demonstrate what happens when toilet cubicles become private which is even worse when they are mixed sex. This is a good article that shows most of the real life consequences of making a cubicle private and mixed sex, even in a more monitored setting: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/drug-dealing-drinking-dirt-problems-28517175 It's really useful to think about design and how that affects occupants more vulnerable than you. I am hoping you can see why single sex spaces, with a degree of visibility, are so important in protecting children, women and the medically vulnerable.
If you or the Good Law project want more information about my research, I am willing to discuss. There is so much more I have - and this is a potted yet somewhat rambling version so some nuance may be lost. I want safety and health for everyone. If you have this post from earlier I wanted to edit to explain my reasonings better and I missed the edit slot. Hopefully, whoever you are, it's given you some ideas to think about.
Single sex cubicles with door gaps are the safest and healthiest option for everyone. This means the area in front of the cubicle also has to be single sex, due to regulations based on safeguarding which in turn are based on reality and commonsense. If there’s ambiguity the cubicle becomes private which decreases the health and safety, particularly for vulnerable people.