Row over single-sex toilets at Wiltshire Council HQ

[IwantToRetire]

"I asked them what their plan was after the Supreme Court ruling. And they're in a difficult position really, because of the new cabinet," she said.

"They gave me a statement saying we're getting round it by making facilities unisex, or general neutral.

"They've taken over the ladies and the gents and made them a free-for-all. I don't find that good enough."

https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/25454027.row-single-sex-toilets-wiltshire-council-hq-rumbles/

She felt ambushed when asked what the definition of a woman was. How much notice did she need, a couple of days, a month? They really have no idea how ridiculous they sound.

And if you read the article in full the suggestion of how to deal with the ruling is to make all toilets uni-sex / gender neutral!

I don’t see what the big issue is with this. I live on the Wiltshire/Somerset border, most places now have mixed sex single cubical toilets. Glastonbury being an example of this. A lot of the public toilets here vanished years ago so I’m just pleased to have somewhere to pee tbh. Disabled toilets have always been mixed sex? There isn’t one for disabled women and one for disabled men? There’s often just one disabled toilet. So it’s ok for disabled women to piss in the same place as men piss?

I am all for all public toilets being like this if they are separate toilet cubicles (with sink etc..).

So who is going to pay to convert all these toilets?

I thought staff were entitled to single sex toilets? Unless working in the kind of small place that only has one toilet. Which is not the case here!

The big issue is that single sex facilities are required by all sorts of regulations, from building to workplace to health and safety regs.
Gender neutral toilets MAY be provided in addition to single sex toilets, and are acceptable as replacements if there is insufficient space for single sex facilities.

The specific big issue with the case quoted in the OP is that the council appear to have re-badged the existing women's and men's toilets as 'gender neutral'.
This is not allowed: there is a specification for a 'universal' gender-neutral toilet, and it has to be an enclosed cubicle which contains handwashing facilities as well as a WC. Existing single-sex toilets are not like this, and so can't be considered 'universal' gender neutral toilets, just because somebody has stuck a different badge on the door.

You suggest it's no big deal, just make all toilets in public buildings gender neutral. But this would involve installing building-regs-compliant 'universal' toilets, not just re-badging existing single-sex toilets, in all public buildings, and the cost in terms of disruption and expense would be huge.

It seems unreasonable to commit such a large amount of public money to changing an existing configuration - women's, men's and disabled toilets - which works for the vast majority of the public, to facilitate such a tiny percentage of the population.

The accessible toilets are specifically for one person to go to the toilet at a time. You can tell this because there is one toilet in the room.

Disabled women are entitled to single-sex facilities when using the toilet just like other women, which is why in my working life, I ensure that disabled women who need assistance with the toilet have a female carer to do so.

Has anybody come up with a good justification for spending so much money and causing so much disruption by adding an optional fourth toilet space to facilitate 250,000 max. people when the existing three spaces are adequate for the other 68 million or so?

If the fourth space is at the expense of existing provision, whether by removing some or all single sex facilities, or making the accessible disabled toilet available to able-bodied trans people, that makes it even worse, but I'm just taking a pragmatic view about the cost/benefit ratio of such a large undertaking for such a small percentage of the population.

The universal provision of 'third spaces' [which are actually fourth spaces, as the accessible toilet is the existing third space] is often offered as The Big Solution. It certainly is big, but is the 'problem' it claims to solve big enough to merit such expense and disruption?

Meanwhile, there's another 250,000 plus people whose disabilities mean standard accessible toilets are insufficient. Unless their destination has a Changing Places campaign standard toilet, they have to stay within reach of their own home. A Changing Places toilet differs from a standard accessible toilets, because it will include a ceiling hoist for people who can't transfer from wheelchair to toilet independently, and an adult-size changing bench.

That's 250,000 very vulnerable people who are subjected to the urinary leash, but they seem to get less media focus and support than able-bodied adult males who want to have the choice of urinating in the ladies' toilets instead of the men's. Weird.

If you will indulge me in a little 'whataboutery', what about baby changing tables? These need to be in sex-neutral spaces (because who would want to change their baby or toddler in the average men's loo? 🤮).
In many places the baby-changing table has been added into the disabled toilet. So this means disabled toilets are already de facto no longer JUST for disabled people.

The obvious solution is to expect the small number of cross-dressers who are too self-conscious or nervous to use the sex-based facilities to use the disabled toilet.
No need for "fourth" spaces.

Honestly, I think the placement of changing tables in accessible toilets is an unreasonable impingement on the very limited provision for disabled people. Adults without disabilities should not be further colonising those spaces because they choose not to use the toilets that disabled people can't use.

Truly, it is the height of selfishness to take a disabled person's only option of toilet, especially when many disabilities affect how long the person affected can wait before they will experience the humiliation of involuntary soiling. Spaces for disabled people are not ours to give away.

Society made the error of giving women's provisiom to some particular men because the men were unhappy. Let's not repeat it by giving disabled people's provision to some particular men because the men are unhappy.

I agree.
I've never seen a changing facility in a disabled toilet, but I don't live in the UK, maybe it's more common there.
It is unreservedly wrong - accessible toilets are for people with disabilities who need adaptations to use the toilet, they are not a handy spare space to put a changing table, nor a consolation prize for disgruntled able-bodied trans people.
I hope there is a campaign to have accessible toilets restored to the people who actually need them, which would overlap with a campaign to have more changing facilities.

Wiltshire worming their way around legislation. Obviously don’t value the dignity of females. Someone needs to take them to court.

I saw this on X this morning, I think. I was unsurprised to read that one of the main characters in this discussion was Mr H Belcher.

I couldn’t work out though, whether the de-sexed toilets were already single cubicles with basins, which had previously been marked M and F (does happen in some places) or whether these were unsuitable toilets to be mixed sex.

My only thought was that, if I was there and they were unsuitable mixed sex toilets, I would be using the men’s as an ongoing protest until things were fixed.

I'm a woman who works at Wiltshire Council HQ. There are men, at least one who is still using the women's toilets daily. The judgement seems to have passed them by or they have absolutely no regard for women's rights. I wonder which it is?

I am not certain but on one floor which MPs, directors etc use there are and has been since County Hall was refurbished, 4 singular toilets with basins, 2 of which were women's, 2 were men's. I am assuming it is these toilets that are now being classed as unisex although perhaps I've missed new signage on the door of the toilets I use, because as I say in my previous post this toilet is used by at least one male colleague.

There is no issue with single occupancy, fully enclosed rooms with integral basin, and they are common or usual in small cafes or other establishments.

But in large communal facilities, in order to be compliant, they must have an integral washbasin....not a communal was area.

Although, imagine the night time economy and a mixed sex, communal facility such as this......that might very well be a very compromising or even unsafe experience for women. I certainly wouldn't like it or feel comfortable with it.

The article suggests that there are traditional toilets available in the building, and it’s one set which have been converted. If that one set is suitable- fully enclosed with a sink- then that’s probably ok. Though I still prefer sex separated where possible and always look around the mixed sex ones for cameras.

Dads should be able to change a baby in the mens so why can a changing table not be included in the mens and men keep it tidy?

Its lazy sexism that has LAs forgetting that there are single dads and dads who do child care on their own without any women.

The idea that an able body male (or female ) should be using the accessable space because they want to or because the LA wont put a baby change in the mens is wrong.

Which sex lost their single sex block?

Did they remove a mens block or a womans block?

I don’t understand why PPs are rejecting the obvious answer of gender neutral, fully enclosed cubicles each containing a toilet, sink and sanitary bin. Why do we need an open space to mill around in and wash our hands? The cost of converting existing toilets to enclosed individual toilets will certainly be less than employing a toilet bouncer and/or fighting legal challenges.

Clearly it would be cheaper and easier to just convert one toilet into a unisex toilet, rather than all of them.

Unless they are just changing the signs on the doors, which may be illegal if they are traditional cubicles with gaps above and below the doors, as opposed to fully enclosed rooms with a wash basin.

Converting all of them to gender neutral for the benefit of one person smacks of, "If I can't have access to women's toilets, no one can."

It's not an obvious answer - you're still using a loo that men have the right to use, which increases the chance of cameras (never mind general mess) and they are also more dangerous as you cannot see if anyone takes unwell inside them - people often go to the loo at the start of a heart attack, for example.

You can't legally challenge the Supreme Court, and I don't see why you'd need a toilet bouncer unless you believe that trans people can't be trusted to respect the law.

Fully enclosed toilets are less safe for all users. It's much easier to be sexually assaulted in one, or to be taken ill and not found until it's too late.

In addition to the other reasons PP have given, fully enclosed rooms are usually less well ventilated than a bigger room with cubicles.