13,000 toilets and 5,000 changing rooms to change to meet single sex guidance

[IwantToRetire]

Nearly 13,000 toilets and more than 5,000 changing-rooms could have to be revamped at gyms, hospitals and leisure centres across Britain at a cost of millions when new guidance on single-sex spaces shortly comes into force. At least 18,000 signs might also need to be changed, according to figures obtained by the Press Association.

Public-sector bodies, such as local councils, are estimated to face unadjusted costs for cleaning the new-look facilities totalling £20.6 million, together with £14.2 million per year for building work – though these sums could rise even higher. Thursday marks the end of the 40-day scrutiny period since the updated guidance was laid in Parliament, during which time it could have been rejected.

Some campaigners – including NION (Not In Our Name) Women – who said they represent “the many organisations who believe in practical, trans-inclusive services” have raised concerns about the code. In an open letter, they said: “We reject the false choice between protecting women and treating trans people with dignity, and believe women’s rights are best advanced when we stand in solidarity with our trans siblings.”

For Women Scotland (FWS), who claimed victory in the Supreme Court ruling last year, hailed the publication of the guidance in May as a “significant milestone in ensuring women’s rights are upheld and protected”.

Extracts from a briefing by the PA, but sounds like a bit more like another reason women shouldn't have single sex services - its too expensive.

See full article at https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/13000-toilets-5000-changing-rooms-34261012

Nobody counted the amount of money wasted to make these places mixed swx in the first place.

Another colossal waste of taxpayers cash for no reason whatsoever, which went against the actual law.

Stonewall should be sued to the heavens for their advice.

If only they had stuck to the established configuration of women's/men's/accessible toilets and not wasted all that money on unsafe, unpopular ideology/trend-driven alternatives, they'd be quids in now.
Zero sympathy for them, and if it costs the public purse that much to make good their failed social experiments, whoever took the decisions should be held responsible.
Yes I know that's not going to happen, but let's at least point the finger of blame in the right direction!

This doesn't really fit here other than an example of the all out efforts to portray the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC guidelines as some sort of disaster. After all women's rights don't matter. Will copy in full to save others going to Stonewall site:

The EHRC Code has passed 40 days in Parliament without successful challenge. But this is not the end.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission's Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions, and Associations was laid before Parliament 40 days ago. In that time Stonewall, along with MPs, peers, organisations and individuals, have raised serious concerns with the guidance it offers.

Despite these many unresolved issues, the Government has taken no action over the past 40 days and the Secretary of State can now decide when to bring the revised Code into force.

How trans+ people access the vital services they need is now uncertain. For Stonewall, this situation is untenable. Any gap in equality protections for trans+ people undermines their ability to live full and dignified lives here in the UK. This is something Stonewall will not accept.

We are currently working alongside other LGBTQ+, trans+-led and human rights organisations to set a clear vision and action plan for equality in the UK. We are always stronger when we come together and this moment is more important than ever.

Stonewall‘s purpose is to create a world where all Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer+ people are free to live, work and thrive.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/the-ehrc-code-has-passed-40-days-in-parliament-without-successful-challenge-but-this-is-not-the-end

Any gap in equality protections for trans+ people undermines their ability to live full and dignified lives here in the UK.

Interesting. So Stonewall do understand the difference between LGB people and Trans+ people after all! How very convenient when it suits their purposes, because of course having single-sex spaces for women or for men affects LGB people not one whit.

So it's LGBTQIA+++ when it's useful to them, but Trans+ when the LGB are inconvenient. I'm starting to understand... More of the watching of Stonewall to be done, I see.

I think this just shows how much money was quietly wasted kowtowing to this movement.

"and believe women’s rights are best advanced when we stand in solidarity with our trans siblings"

Can someone please demonstrate this to me, feel free to use performative dance, crayons, Venn diagrams, Powerpoint presentation, Sticklebricks, sticky-backed plastic or the tubes from toilet rolls as all I've seen are women being renamed as body part owners/havers although I'm thinking maybe "women's rights" might be not as we know it, Jim.
(Beam me up, Scotty, FGS!)

Stonewall should be sued to the heavens for their advice.

I don't disagree, and councils should sue them until they are broke and out of business, but Stonewall definitely does not have the kind of money it will take. It'll be taxpayers again, and I hope this story is taken up, run with, and expanded. I'm hoping we can all get the word that if toilets and changing rooms hadn't been changed in the first place, none of this expense would have been necessary. What a waste!

😅

Have they costed out the alternative of having to change all the single sex cubicles into universal rooms, full floor to ceiling in height, with individual hand basins and dryers? That’s the design that meets the regulations, legislation and guidance if all toilets have to be in a mixed sex environment. Oh and also they have to lead onto a main corridor. Logistically that would be interesting.

Universal toilets would be more likely to need the extra cost of mechanical ventilation so not to smell and really should have extra alarms such as individual audio visual smoke alarms as recommended by the fire service.

Single sex cubicle design, with door gaps, within a single sex washroom is cheapest, safest, healthiest option.

They wouldn't have to pay to fix it if they hadn't broken it in the first place.

Tough luck for them that the dildo of consequence rarely arrives lubed.

So that's 13,000 toilets and over 5,000 changing rooms where women have been put at a higher potential risk than they eve should have been? Where women should have been able to do what they needed without the fear or at least discomfort of having men nearby?

Not in our name? That's OK. I'm 100% fine with it being done in mine instead. I don't consent to men using my body as a validation tool. And even if 10,000 other women are, they can't consent on my behalf.

And the cost to change it? Should have considered that when they made them that way in the first place then.. Separate facilities has worked for so many years, and without all the weird dramas that TRAs like to pretend will happen. They shouldn't have tried to fix something that wasn't broken in the first place.

@IwantToRetire actually it can cost very little, just change the signs and leave the toilets as they are, its simple

I don’t understand how it’ll cost so much - surely the only thing that needs to change is men obeying the law and using the spaces already available for their sex?

I have no idea. As I said up thread this was distributed through PA (the press association) supposedly a traditional source of news stories back up by facts.

But to me it read like trans propaganda.

If anyone could be bothered it might be worthwhile asking they to validate the claim of the costs.

But sadly this is but one of the many press releases today all plugging the trans narrative.

Not one about women regaining their rights.

In the words of a former NZ Labour politician: "Diddums"

I don’t get it either and it conveniently isn’t explained. Sounds like BS to me.

I bet you’re right and what they’re calculating is being “trans inclusive”

Oh dear. And when you add on the cost of the court case defeats...

Same

i haven’t seen very many toilets where it would need a complete revamp…just changing the signs back….

obviously i am very aware that this may differ for some organisations but it does seem a smidge dramatic

I’m not at all surprised! Lots of places have one set of loos - even some schools. I assume one loo in a cafe is exempt?

Schools shouldn’t have one set of loos, any HT who agreed to that was a fool - if they do then some new signage should sort matters

A single loo in a cafe is different as it a single lockable room.

A lot of the Daily Mail comments (I know but it’s a barometer of sorts) were saying about the initial waste of money and it shouldn’t have been done in the first place. Most people are GC even if they don’t know it.

The main problem will be schools. Children have been the guinea pigs for mixed sex designs.

Places like small cafes with one toilet are fine - there’s always been exemptions.

A sign costs as much as you want it to cost. They could print two dozen "female" and "male" stickers to go over the existing signs for a fiver. Any particularly cash-strapped institutions could write "WOMEN" on a piece of A4 paper in ballpoint pen and stick it on with blutack.