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/

One issue that is rarely raised about gender neutral, self contained loos is that it means each cubical is occupied for longer as people wash their hands etc within the cubicle. So it means longer queues - even in small places with only a couple of customers wanting to use the loo, the time waiting can double. I doubt the number of cubicles increases by enough to compensate for the increased time in use.

as someone who struggles with urge incontinence, longer queuing times are a real issue. When my body decides it needs to go, my bladder can move from comfortable to causing cross legged dancing in a few mins.

Because they are not safer or cleaner and cost more to install and mantain than the block version.
Do an advance search for @Keeptoiletssafe s posts in rhe problems around single units.

The law is clear that work places must provide single sex blocks

And have a look at the provision
The actual law says 1 unit per 25 employees
Rhe HSE says:

https://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/toilets.htm

At 100 employees
5 women and men
8 men

So if all workplaces are built to code women loose out with less units as the design no l
onger has to add extra capacity to account for an inbalance between the sexes. Nor the time on average it takes men v women

How many places have you been to which added in (loo looks offset not centered) the extra space to one side needed for a sanitary bin?

The cubicle is designed around the male body with a sanitary bin being classed as "furniture" like a coat hook or loo roll holder. Not as an functional essential monthly need.

You make very good points, AnSolas,

Post the SC ruling, a lot of the focus has been on who has the right to use which toilet, and gender neutral cubicles have been suggested as the way around the 'awkwardness' of the SC saying that sex segregated facilities are segregated on the basis of biological sex not gender.

Your post is a reminder that the Equality Act is not the only legislation/regulation relating to the right to single sex toilets - workplace regs, health and safety, building regs all require single-sex toilets in the first place.
Unisex toilets are optional extras, or an acceptable alternative if there isn't enough space for single-sex toilets.

'The Toilet Issue' involves legislation other than the Equality Act, and also involves practicalities like cost, disruption to buildings, safety, cleaning, ratio of toilets to users, etc.

Unless I misread it, they have multiple single sex toilet stations in the building.
All those on one corridor were made mixed sex, so presumably both sets.

I used such a set up in a cathedral recently. I didn’t challenge it as I was with a family member for a service. I found it very disconcerting and if I go again will be looking for alternative provision and raising it if none is available.

I'm sorry to here this. Are others who work there concerned. Are you able to raise it as an issue.

I know exactly what you mean.

My husband complains about the queues too. The through put is much slower.

Yes, a rather substantial personage who announced in Women’s Hour that he was as likely to be raped as a woman. I think he might be mistaken.

Unisex toilets are less safe for medical emergencies - apparently 11% of heart attacks take place on the toilet and a fully enclosed cubicle makes it harder to discover a collapsed body. There have been deaths related to this setup.

Unisex toilets are also generally dirtier where men use them and there is a far higher risk of men placing cameras to film due to them having every right to be there. There have also been incidents where a man has pushed a woman back into a unisex toilet room, locked the door and either raped or viciously beaten her. That would be harder in a traditional single sex setup for a number of reasons.

I was in a public-ish building this morning and three women were in the corridor outside our meeting room wanting to use the loo. They were configured M, F and Disabled, each one single occupancy and the ladies was occupied. Two of us opted to use the disabled toilet (no disabled people in our group and no-one in sight waiting so seemed ok). I had a conversation with the other woman who thought they should all be unisex. I agreed that in this area (3 toilets all single use with a sink and hand dryer - well, I assume the men's had this facility) this could be ok but pointed out that unisex loos and changing rooms are the site of the majority of sexual assaults (that take place in such places) and she agreed, but I honestly think that this had not occured to her until I mentioned it.

@Moonlightfrog "I don’t see what the big issue is with this...I’m just pleased to have somewhere to pee tbh....I am all for all public toilets being like this if they are separate toilet cubicles (with sink etc..)."

I have truncated your post for brevity, but if it's just "somewhere to pee" why do you make a point of specifying any current single-sex-spaces-turned-unisex-toilets should be "separate with sink etc"? What's your objection to the current layouts, if you don't see any issue with unisex facilities overall?

If the blocks in the cathedral or elsewhere are relabled as mixed sex the likelyhood is the raised cubicle wall leaves women (and it is always mainly women) much more at risk from tec based non-contact sex offending.
Primark changing room convictions prove that if that type of man has access he will sitck a cameraphone into the gaps to perve on women.

A lot of the disadvantages with toilets are to do with the design. The universal design for a mixed sex can also be used for a single sex toilet and will be if the area in front is mixed sex.

Universal toilets in current building regs are suitable for being mixed sex, have a sink, are fully enclosed, sound resistant and have an easy mechanism to open the door from the outside outwards in order to access the room if anyone has collapsed stopping the door opening.

It sounds like the female and the male toilets are universal-like designs. When you have to compromise health and safety with these designs, the ways to lessen the risks are to have them in as busy a place as possible, opening directly out on to a place where lots of people are, particularly somewhere like a front desk where people clock who in going in and out, and to check them regularly. It helps to have as few as possible to keep an eye on and have cctv but if someone is having a medical emergency or is being assaulted, cctv is retrospective not preventative. Obviously I don’t like to focus on a particular case but to show the similarity and dangers - one man was left for 6 days in a toilet after a medical emergency in a council building.

The traditional unisex toilet in schools was typically put by the front entrance desk where it could be monitored.

What will happen if you turn a universal style female toilet into a mixed sex toilet by changing the sign on the door? It gives ‘permission’ for men to enter. It will become smellier and there will be more pathogens. This is not anti-men it’s just scientific fact. Men on average are not as hygienic. Their wee smells different as it consists of different components. We may not realise but studies show women and men can tell them apart! Guide dogs can smell the difference to direct their owners to the correct loo.

Men are possibly more likely to use the enclosed toilet for a ‘long sit down’. There are studies to show urine splashes and build up over time in men and women’s toilets and because men wee standing up, the particles travel further. Universal designs are the least healthy anyway as you can’t clean them as effectively and the ventilation is restricted as there’s no gaps for a mop or air flow. The door often rests in the closed position too.

The door handle is much more likely to be dirty as men do not wash their hands as much as women which is a problem as you touch it after you’ve washed your hands.

The ‘permission’ to be in there, also gives them the opportunity to set up hidden cameras. This sounds dramatic but is actually a very big and increasing problem which is always done by men (see Scottish Parliament).

Social ‘propriety’ goes out of the window with private designs in public spaces, particularly if they are mixed sex. They are places people have sex and do drugs. It does vary with location but it happens in schools, hospitals, restaurants, trains, planes, offices…I have examples of all of these. All of them involve one or more men.

Useful reference for hygiene:
https://salus.global/article-show/pathogen-findings-raise-concerns-about-move-to-unisex-hospital-facilities

Thank you for your work on this. Too many people assume that when facilities are changed to ‘unisex’ that safety and privacy of women is considered. It clearly isn’t.

Agreed about Keeptoiletssafe's great work on this topic.

Just focusing on the words ' when facilities are changed to ‘unisex’ -
the obvious, but not-often-asked question is WHY are they being changed?
The answer is, 'To go to extreme lengths to facilitate a vocal but tiny percentage of the population, with no regard for the negative consequences for a much larger percentage of the population' .

The why? question is fundamental to the issue of toilet provision.
'Because we say so, and we'll make life very very unpleasant if you don't grant us our wish' is not an acceptable answer.

@Keeptoiletssafe This thread has just reminded me of a visit to Home in Manchester recently (cinema, theatre, arts venue).

I noticed, as well as some single sex provisions, there were also what looked to be a block of loos labelled 'All Gender'. From what I could see this was a room with normal toilets (communal sinks and gaps under and above the partitions).

If the venue has equivalent SS facilities are they allowed also to have these?

There's also a music venue called The White Hotel in Salford that I've not been to for a couple of years. I'm wondering if that still has the absolute shit show 'gender neutral' bogs that blokes had to walk past the cubicles the use the perpendicular urinals 😷post SCJ?

I've been looking at the WRN Manchester's report on local councils' responses to questions re following the law and that's been annoying me too!

I don't see what the problem is with providing single sex toilets. Like motorway stations 😄 and yes there is a legal requirement to provide them for employees.

Exactly.

The why? question is fundamental to the issue of toilet provision.
'Because we say so, and we'll make life very very unpleasant if you don't grant us our wish' is not an acceptable answer.

But generally I think it is the answer. From a lot of entitled male bullies.

@CrackingOn50 I noticed, as well as some single sex provisions, there were also what looked to be a block of loos labelled 'All Gender'. From what I could see this was a room with normal toilets (communal sinks and gaps under and above the partitions).

No these don’t conform to building regs but more importantly I believe the Health & Safety at Work legislation, 1992.

@WorkforWiltshire I’m truly sorry to hear that you are in a difficult situation where a man is continuing to use your women’s toilets, despite the ruling. Short of telling management it needs to be sorted out, it’s difficult to know what you can do. These men have wielded their power for so long that they will be difficult to stop.

I recently had a trip down south to a couple of places where I was in a group for a course. One of the places we used was a new build university, where they had male and female, cubicles with external sinks. There were also a couple of single use, gender neutral toilets (I assume with sinks) at the entrance so you had to walk past them to get to the single sex spaces. I thought that at least those using them wouldn’t be able to moan that they were less convenient to get to. What I didn’t like was that all the cubicles in the single sex toilets were floor to ceiling. I guess they were taking no chances, now there are mobile phones. It did feel quite claustrophobic to me, but at least they had enough toilets.

The other building we used was older and they seemed to have basically converted the limited toilet spaces they had into mixed sex. There were sinks in all the cubicles, but the whole thing took impossibly long as washing your hands takes as long as, or longer than using the toilet, thus doubling the time taken.

Various family members have chastised me over the years saying “it’s not all about trans” when I’ve commented before on all these changes. I just find it really frustrating, having gone 40 years with a perfectly viable toilet system (albeit short of women’s toilets, often) to have everything made worse because a bunch of entitled men are insisting they must be allowed to go where they shouldn’t.

The other problem with replacing single sex with universal style facilities is that they take up a lot more space than single sex.

Universal toilets are physically larger than cubicles. The layout also means that you can get fewer universal into the same area than single sex cubicles. This is because the doors to universal must all open onto a free flow space. This requires a very large area.

The draft of the EHRC Code of Practice for Service Providers noted that whilst it is legal for service providers to only provide gender neutral, universal style toilets, it may be sex discrimination. This is because “gender neutral” facilities impact men and women differently. I hope this is retained in the final code of practice.

@PriOn1 What I didn’t like was that all the cubicles in the single sex toilets were floor to ceiling. I guess they were taking no chances, now there are mobile phones.

I have looked at this a lot. The Department of Education gave this as a reason for their completely private cubicles; privacy was mentioned multiple times in the toilet design section whereas there were no mentions for safety. Many schools have cubicles designated either single sex or mixed sex but opening up onto a corridor with communal sinks completely accessible on view to everyone. The girls’ cubicles have to be private as men/boys walk past and vice versa.

I have attached a typical picture of some current unisex uk school toilets. These are unsafe, not least to the dozen or so pupils in the average secondary school that have diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions and for any child taken seriously unwell. Schools have tried all sorts of sensors inside cubicles to assess what is going in similar private designs. Private design encourages misuse (drugs, vandalism, sex), but these sensors make the pupils feel like they are being watched. There’s even companies that set up subscription services for sensors inside cubicles that activate a call system under certain sounds. I would have a horror of letting out a fart in case reception boomed out ‘can we help you?’

I believe technology has moved on as now the bigger threat I think is from hidden cameras. More reward, less risk, especially with voyeurism laws. A nice private cubicle or room gives you all the time in the world to set one up without anyone wondering what you are doing. I would be interested to know if the male cubicles in the Scottish Parliament are a completely private cubicle design. Voyeurism is always a male crime.

Because of the set up in mixed sex toilets in other venues, inside you now have to have a hand dryer or paper dispenser, bin, sink etc, and hopefully some sort of mechanical ventilation system and maybe an individual fire or smoke alarm. There’s a lot more going on and more places to hide a tiny camera.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/27/secret-spy-cameras-voyeurism-uk

And to point out the police had to do a search of Scottish Parliaments (who provide SSS "under protest") toilets after it was alleged that footage of males was recoverd as part of a police search.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgm23rnk7z0o

It is also possible (if there are images) that the person in question had not placed any recording tec in the building but rather had obtained images by someone else

This following quote is 17 years old now. It’s taken from a Government report into the Provision of Public Toilets. The problems are well known but the difference is, in the 2008 report, there was no mention of people wanting to use the facilities of the other sex.

‘Furthermore unisex toilets, where women and men are meant to share the same facilities is most unacceptable to many women because of the hygiene, modesty and personal safety factors. It is often seen as a solution by men to the queues in the Ladies, but they do not understand the problems. From a religious, (not just moslem) and modesty viewpoint it is unacceptable to mix with men in such an intimate setting (even sequentially in terms of Automatic Unisex toilets), and shared washing facilities where women get "touched up" can be particularly problematic. I may be ok for ladettes in a night club but not for the general population. "Mixing" as a solution always impacts more upon women, whether it be hospital wards, mental institutions failing schools, public toilets, swimming pools or showers. In the case of toilets the queues might be reduced simply because the women do not use the unisex toilets, and may not even go out to that area because there is no alternative. Why do women have to make do? We all pay as much taxes and rates as the men nowadays? Of course if you ask the men in charge of the toilets they don't see this as a problem but ask ordinary women and you will get a very different response.
I am very concerned about the hygiene and cleaning regimes in public toilets, and increased use of off street pub toilets who increase the problems by reducing official control and pathogen control in "privatised premises" what with C-MRSA growth and lots of other community based pathogens that have now left the confines of the more familiar sites of hospital toilets. I have written extensively on these issues too but this may be alarmist to raise when we simply are fighting for more loos at this point in time.’

Link for anyone interested in the concerns about public toilets in 2008(!!), illustrating the common problems and differences to today:

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmcomloc/636/636.pdf