Co-op removes trans inclusive toilet policy

[IwantToRetire]

The Co-op’s previous internal policy stated: “If the toilets where you work are gender-specific, you should use the ones you feel safest in. We’ll never expect you, or ask you, to use the disabled toilets instead, but of course if you feel most comfortable using them, then that’s fine.”

These sentences have been removed from the policy, which now states: “We know that for people who identify as trans, or non-binary, or intersex, it’s [sic] may be difficult to feel comfortable and/or safe using gendered toilets. For the comfort and privacy of all colleagues, wherever possible we will provide gender-neutral individual lockable units, with inclusive signage.”

It is not clear yet what this will mean in practice.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/6772d1ec-d619-4e4f-b952-395e268f63bb and archive at https://archive.ph/9JMRb

In terms of the Coop’s original statement re: use the toilet you feel safest in, I just want to point out the differences between feelings and real incidences.

I have been researching real incidences where safety is compromised. I have also looked at academic articles mentioning safety and toilets.

In the last few years, journal articles on toilets safety have focused on the viewpoint of transgender individuals by academics who do not have experience in building safety. Here’s an example of one by Ben Colliver:

https://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/12661/1/Colliver-Duffus2021_Article_QueerSpaceToiletProvisionAcces.pdf

Note in the above that the tendency is to put word ‘safety’ in ‘quote marks’ when it concerns women. The safety of transpeople or non binary people is not put in quotes.

Articles like the one above don’t relate to what is happening in real life. It doesn’t discuss incidents of what happens in real life and ways to make toilets safer.

I spend a lot of my time trying to find out the how’s and why’s of what actually happened.
Building Regs are put in place for a reason, relating to health and safety incidents.

I want all people to be safe in toilets. To do this we should look at facts not feelings. Evidence shows single sex toilet cubicles (with door gaps) within a single sex washroom is the safest configuration. In a mixed sex environment, the required privacy becomes a problem. There are various ways to mitigate these to make them somewhat safer.

In the Coop wants some ideas on how to achieve safer toilets for everyone, I would gladly assist.

Only having mixed sex toilets is not the easy solution it is sometimes presented as-
Apart from the negatives about them from a health and safety point of view, and that they are less efficient for 'through-put' of users, etc., they are not building regs compliant in some jurisdictions.
New buildings in England have to have separate men's and women's toilets, acc to building regs, unless there isn't enough space in the building.
So toilets that are made available to the public in places like new supermarkets will have to have single sex toilets, and they would have to apply the sex=biological sex ruling to their use.

Yes. The calculations for sinks within the toilet compartments, rather than in a washroom, mean 25% more toilet compartments have to be built to achieve the same turnover.

This graphic is a nice demonstration of how many women’s toilets are needed compared to men’s to achieve the same turnover. Women rarely get equity.

Well since women have been excluded (and are still) by men in their single sex spaces, because many women have needs of their own and can't use mixed sex spaces, on a women's rights forum its obviously a bit of a serious interest, yes.

They're interested in where women can pee and cannot pee you see. And women's equality and access to society and spaces. This being a problem for women that is only now, slowly and very grudgingly being sorted out.

No one was offering women additional accessible facilities as they are men with gender identities, they were a whole lot more disadvantaged. Thank goodness for the signs that the law is getting places to be properly inclusive and think about everyone's needs and not just one group's eh?

That’s nice. Isn’t the case for many other parts of the country. That aside, this is from the policy for colleagues (staff). Not customer toilets.

The relevant bit of the Workplace regs is very very short. And clear.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/20

20.—(1) Suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences shall be provided at readily accessible places.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), sanitary conveniences shall not be suitable unless—

(a)the rooms containing them are adequately ventilated and lit;

(b)they and the rooms containing them are kept in a clean and orderly condition; and

(c)separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.

(Note that 'room' has a specific meaning in regs and relevant standards eg soundproofing fire resistance etc. It does not mean cubicle or partition.)