@SingleSexSpacesInSchools
Yes the reason I and others kept on discussing does serve a purpose to a certain point. It gives those who are new to this the facts and reasons we have safeguarding. It has been pointed out many times that women and men on here are talking about the safety of girls, not themselves. OnePost said there is no answer to my safeguarding questions on women and children - it can’t exist if it doesn’t centre OnePost. It was made very clear.
Moving on, this seems a good place to add this again for anyone new to this. Several years ago, when I was researching ‘inclusive design’ I kept coming across references to two Americans. They have a big company advising schools and other businesses on adding inclusive toilets. They were quoted over here for ‘evidence’ for Part M of the Document T consultation. First is transwoman Susan Stryker, a Professor in Gender Studies. Susan was recruited by Joel Saunders, an architect. I have listened to his lectures available online. He says his original influences for his career in design were taken from design elements used for cruising in male public toilets and incorporating them into homes. Stryker’s work is more boundary breaking. Neither have a health and safety emphasis. Their designs weren’t tested or analysed.
Some of their earlier articles:
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
Remember these two were quoted as evidence for enclosing cubicles (for Part M feeding into Document T) and this government-commissioned report’s remit was to look at people with long term health conditions. There was no discussion on why enclosing cubicles isn’t a good idea but there was also no mention of many long term health conditions either. However in this report there was discussion of non-binary crotch heights for urinals. Periods were only discussed in terms of transmen - no mention of endometriosis. Their reason for recommending enclosed cubicles in the evidence listed is this sentence, ‘A better solution, supported by many transactivists, and increasingly found in trendy nightclubs and restaurants, is to eliminate gender-segregated facilities entirely and treat the public restroom as one single open space with fully enclosed stalls.’
Knowing what I know about what goes on in trendy nightclub and restaurant toilets, this is not down to health and safety. This is creating an environment to accommodate privacy so misuse is ‘out of sight, out of mind’ to the proprietors. It is the opposite of safeguarding. Safeguarding used to be having traditional single sex designs and accessing the only mixed sex, private toilet with a radar key. Edit to add: In schools the unisex toilet was and still is listed to be opposite reception for closer supervision.
‘treat the public restroom as one single open space with fully enclosed stalls’
Interestingly is a design that was suggested by Beth Upton for changing rooms in Fife as well as now being a new design used by secondary schools around the country for toilets. It has been shown to be a disastrous design choice around the country too
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/drug-dealing-drinking-dirt-problems-28517175
It’s time to align schools to stronger health and safety regulations and legislation.