Women-only Cambridge college only has unisex lavatories

[IwantToRetire]

... the current toilet arrangement goes against the college’s own principles of providing a welcoming and nurturing environment for women.

Interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) after the April ruling states that “toilets, showers and changing facilities may be mixed-sex where they are in a separate room lockable from the inside”, citing the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/20/women-only-cambridge-college-equality-law-unisex-lavatories/
and also at https://archive.is/5Ie3x

But ...

... the college is also coming under fire from pro-trans groups over a new policy which restricts research scholarships to biological women only, following the Supreme Court ruling.

Just following back on the mention I made of an interview on Radio 3 with Deborah Prentice, University of Cambridge Vice-Chancellor. Here it is: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002jfys

If you're not interested in the music (it's quite a nice selection this week), then the bit in question is at about 49 minutes. The interviewer, Michael Berkeley, asks about a study she and a student did in 2002 about gender stereotypes: https://www.cogconfluence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PrenticeandCarranza.pdf

I've just started reading the above. Nothing leaps out so far. The title is: What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. In the radio interview, she talks very clearly about expectations of women and men with no fudgey language.

As I understand it at Cambridge, management of colleges and university are almost completely separate. Vice-chancellor is the big cheese for the university (the chancellor is more of a ceremonial role, I think), but has little power over what the colleges are up to. No doubt she has influence, though. I wonder what she makes of Newnham's predicament. Surely she can see that a college actively breaking the law is really bad news?!

Has anybody else answered your question? Sorry if I'm doubling up, I can't see any reply other than gruebleen saying 'If they are just for customers then the rules are much less prescriptive and it would be necessary for women to argue that this arrangement was unsafe or discriminatory.'

In fact, there are a number of rules and regulations that cover the provision of toilets, so it is not necessary for women to have to resort to complaints about discrimination or safety - compliance with the law is a much more powerful basis for complaining.

It looks like the NT have just re-badged existing toilets in the case you mention. Mixed sex/unisex/gender neutral toilets have to comply with these specifications:

“universal toilet” means toilet facilities which— (a) are provided in a fully enclosed room which contains a water closet and washbasin and hand-drying facilities, and (b) is intended for individual use by persons of either sex.
Toilet accommodation: Approved Document T

So shared handwashing facilities do not comply with the regs., and the cubicles should be fully enclosed - although this makes them less safe.

If there is enough room in this venue for separate women's and men's toilets, that's what should be provided - 'universal' toilets are OK as an additional extra, or if the building is too small to accommodate separate toilets. But sex-segregated toilets plus an accessible toilet is 'the norm', and this has been reinforced in building regs as recently as 2024, so there's no excuse for claiming not to know that separate toilets must be provided, unless there's not enough space.

If the NT rebadged existing separate toilets - if it's an old building, that's what would have been there previously - by labelling them 'unisex', not only does that not comply with regs, but...
why would they do such a thing, when the existing toilet provision, which I assume also had an accessible toilet, was working for the vast majority of the population?
That's a rhetorical question, but one which I think needs to be asked of all these venues going to the expense of removing a perfectly adequate configuration, to replace them with something which may or may not comply with regs, and which very few people like.