Bristol Watershed toilets situation.

[TemporarilyCantDoMyself]

Could do with some help. I attend the Bristol Watershed frequently, it's my favourite place to see a film and has been for many years. Until a couple of years ago the toilets were single sex, then they converted the main toilet block into mixed cubicles, open to all. BUT there's a corridor behind the bar, little used, which also had toilets and they remained separate sexes. Or so I thought.

The other day I went and used the corridor toilet while I was there, but they've got new 'trans inclusive' signs up. I used it anyway and came home and wrote them an email, to which I've just had a reply.

I sent this; Dear Watershed, Since my last visit signs have gone up outside the toilets in the back corridor that say ‘trans inclusive’. So you no longer provide women only facilities. Can you tell me why? I am a frequent user of the Watershed and very unhappy about this. As far as I understand it, it’s also against the law. I intend to look into this further. Thank you so much, yours, TemporarilyCantDoMyself

Just received this reply; Dear TemporarilyCantDoMyself,

The toilets in the Café & Bar corridor that you are referring to have always been used by Trans+ people - this was even written in our code of conduct. And whilst I expect most Trans+ people are using the inclusive loos, there are some Trans + people who (like some cis people) prefer not to use gender neutral toilets.
The only change we have made is signage - the updated EHRC code suggests we need to formally recognise these toilets as mixed sex and tell people we have done so. This is not illegal, in fact without new signs the EHRC code could have left us vulnerable to legal action.
For the small minority who don't want to use these toilets, or our gender neutral toilets, we have designated two fully enclosed toilets as single sex toilets.
^You can see all the information regarding our current toilet provision here - https://www.watershed.co.uk/info/everything-you-need-know-about-toilets-at-watershed^

Best wishes
Clare Reddington
CEO, Watershed

I'm just so upset. I'm 71 and I've been a feminist since I was 15, and I'm so bloody tired and frankly want to ignore it all and just try and live my life. The one single sex women's toilet referred to in the reply, by the way, is past the entrance to the cinemas so in order to use it I either have to be seeing a film or to ask permission to use it without seeing a film.

Fuck me I just don't want to.
Also there's so much to unpack in that reply and I just feel daunted. Trans+ for one thing - are the LGBs all just + to the Trans now, is that what that is? (I'm bisexual by the way). And the use of cis of course. And the sneering reference to the small minority who don't want to use the toilets. Etc.

Help me write something coherent in reply that isn't just ARGH I'M NEVER COMING BACK TO THE WATERSHED NOW AND I HATE YOU which is very much what I'd LIKE to say.
So as not to dripfeed, I have a trans relative and a family rift so I do feel extra sensitive and upset on the subject.
Thanks.

Clare Reddington is a troll. She uses her publicly-funded position at the head of an established local institution to troll women.

I'm no expert but i think the problem you have is that service providers (unlike employers) do not have to provide single sex toilets - they can provide "mixed" toilets if that is what they want to do.

But if they decide to provide "sexed" (ie single sex) toilets, then they can only be used by the appropriate sex.

so shops, cinemas and restaurants etc are not required to provide single sex toilets, but if they diced to do so, they must be single biological sex.

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will quickly corretc me

I suspected as much. I have to reply though, I can't just roll over. Much as I'd actually like to, fingers in ears, la la la!

What are the (ladies') toilets with the new signage like? Are there multiple cubicles in a room? Or is it a single toilet in a fully enclosed room with hand washing facilities inside?

Are you a fellow Bristol-dweller, @Diversmattress ? Obviously don't say if you'd rather not.

Ok not sure about your question.
There's now 3 lots of toilets. Spanking new cubicles mixed use. Old style stalls used to be women's now apparently also mixed use. And a single women's toilet that I've never actually seen or used because it's behind the cinemas entrance and I never, ever go to the toilet during a film! So I've no idea what it's like but as it's one toilet it's presumably one cubicle with basin etc.

Ok I just understood but I'm not editing the above. So the what used to be women's with the new signage are individual stalls/multiple cubicles with doors but not top to floor doors. Whereas the new ones all have the top to floor doors.

I believe it may be indirect discrimination to women to only provide mixed sex toilets when there is clearly capacity to provide single sex too (women are disproportionally affected compared to men).

I think this is the situation, but it would depend on someone bringing a case. (Or threatening to?)

I’m sure I’ve heard Naomi Cunningham discuss this somewhere.

You could be right @Manxexile . I'm still going to make as much as I can of a protest though even if that's the case. In fact it would seem that's why the signage has gone up, because they sneakily made them trans inclusive and retrospectively realised they had to be mixed in order for that to be compliant. I'm guessing someone complained.

"So the what used to be women's with the new signage are individual stalls/multiple cubicles with doors but not top to floor doors. Whereas the new ones all have the top to floor doors."

AFAIK if they are mixed sex, then they can't be like this, these are only suitable for single sex. I'm just going to try and find their "Code of Conduct" to see what they've written as "trans inclusive" could be ambiguous since male trans people are allowed to use the men's etc

I was there at the weekend and used a single sex toilet, fully enclosed with basin that was spotlessly clean too. It felt very safe I’d add too. Whilst designating more toilets mixed annoys some people it’s actually helpful for dads with daughters or mums with sons who worry about them using correct sex toilets without adult supervision. Unlike some places they are decent toilets, same cannot be said for all cinemas

Was it the single solitary one they have left though, past the ticket holders entrance?

Thanks @RoseInAPot that's really helpful. 🌹

Thanks.
All this is helping me feel a bit less alone and helplessly enraged.

It just reeks of pettiness and nastiness.

'We have to comply but we will make sure that we do the absolute bare minimum for those nasty women who dare ask for single sex toilets. Then we are legally covered but who cares if it doesn't work for women or if women now stay home. Serves them right for being bigots.'

Or something like that.

This seems to be their general Code Of Conduct
Our Values and approach to Ethics | Watershed
which doesn't seem to say much about toilets except no filming.
It does however, say this: We ask everyone to treat one another with kindness and understanding.

This is from 2022
Our toilets are for everyone – so what is the problem? | Watershed

I'm just about to read this from your OP https://www.watershed.co.uk/info/everything-you-need-know-about-toilets-at-watershed

and then I will try and find what the EHRC says about the toilets you used which we're previously single sex.

'Watershed's full policy and equality impact assessment will be reviewed by our Board of Trustees at their next meeting in the Autumn. '

A good time to offer some feedback, then.

https://www.watershed.co.uk/info/everything-you-need-know-about-toilets-at-watershed

https://www.watershed.co.uk/articles/our-toilets-are-everyone-so-what-problem

Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 prohibits a service provider from applying a provision, criterion or practice which puts women at a particular disadvantage compared with men, unless it can be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/19

Reading the way they talk about 'gender critical' people, though, I get the feeling they aren't 'for everyone' at all.

They should also be careful they don't discriminate on the basis of belief.

'...toilet-gate has been quite useful in signalling the importance of toilets in our commitment to an inclusive welcome. It is also a lesson - as we seek to embody our values and be more open about the issues we believe in, we might not take all of our customers and audiences with us.

If you believe, like we do, that Watershed is for everyone – then we would be hugely grateful for financial and moral support.'

How can it be for everyone when she's JUST said she isn't intending to 'take all of our customers and audiences with us'?

I'm sorry this has happened, OP, it really is infuriating because there appears to be no logic behind the decision, just that women mustn't have anything that's just for us.😠

I was thinking the same as EyesOpening - my understanding is that a mixed sex toilet has to be of the single-use-lockable-cubicle-floor-to-ceiling kind.
Rebadging existing single-sex toilets with doors-with-gaps is not acceptable.

While it's true, as Manxexile said, that they are not required to provide separate single sex toilets for the public [they do for staff though, I think?] the point is that they used to provide single sex women's toilets and they withdrew that facility.

They can't say that there's no room for separate toilets, because they used to be there already; they can't say that there's nowhere for transpeople to go, because they have lots of mixed sex toilets now; so the only reason for withdrawing the separate provision from women would seem to me to be spite.

I'm not suggesting you write to them accusing them of being spiteful😐that's just between us.

I fear you aren't going to get anywhere with them, OP, but if you feel you want to have another go, I'd check the acceptability of those re-badged women's toilets, because I think they are not compliant as mixed sex toilets, and I'd ask them to state why, when there is existing mixed sex provision for their trans customers, they decided to withdraw single sex provision for their women customers?
What was the rationale behind the decision? Why was it not considered reasonable to maintain the existing configuration which was inclusive of everybody?
And of course you can say that you have no problem at all with women's single-sex toilets being trans-inclusive, in that transmen, who are biological women, are of course entitled to use the women's toilets.

"And whilst I expect most Trans+ people are using the inclusive loos, there are some Trans + people who (like some cis people) prefer not to use gender neutral toilets... The only change we have made is signage"

Let me get this right...

They've labelled the ladies' loos "gender neutral" because some people don't want to use the newer actual unisex loos? However, she still considers them as "the ladies", despite being labelled "gender neutral" because some "trans + people" don't want to recognise them as unisex - so as to affirm their belief?

Just an observation, but in my town we have a trendy Curzon cinema which makes a big thing of inclusivity and has gender neutral toilets and a huge Odeon which has stuck to men's and women's. It is always the arty, up market facilities that go down the gender neutral route. Those catering to the masses know their customers won't tolerate it.

That design is not as hygienic or as safe (particularly for women, children or those suffering a medical emergency) as single sex cubicles with door gaps, within a single sex washroom.

Toilets are places where people go when they feel ill. They are also places people go to take drugs. That’s why building regulations state non domestic toilet compartment doors must have the ability, if they are inwards opening, to be able to open outwards from the outside precisely because it is a known place people collapse onto the door. For example, up to 11% of cardiac arrests are on the toilet. After someone collapses, there is a window of opportunity to rescue them before there is more harm. If you have no way of knowing, people can be left for hours or days in very busy venues (supermarkets, stations, clubs, doctors, hospitals, offices etc) because they were behind a fully enclosed door.

For extra safety, I would recommend cubicle doors should rest in the open position so men can’t hide in them.

There’s also been a sensible exception for children with an opposite sex adult with them - it’s not a problem.
The single sex design detailed above is best when a man takes a girl or boy to the toilet with them (for obvious reasons). To have a door gap can prevent misuse happening in the first place.

These toilets aren’t inclusive.
They are least bad for healthy men.

What they are is all completely private compartments because that’s the line in the sand for everyone when the 2 sexes mix, with good reason. 100% of voyeurs in prison are men (The Guardian May 25). However, there’s a huge increase in voyeurism through hidden cameras placed by men in unisex designs as they provide the privacy to set up, the legitimacy to be there and more places to hide cameras.

Please note I can back up what I say with evidence from researching toilet incidents for several years.

Posting this not because I doubt FWR very own experts but thought it worthwhile seeing how those who either dont care or want to make a point about inclusivity can play the game.

So this is an AI summary of guidelines, which are as likely as anything going to be what venues etc. will use.

there is no law or EHRC rule requiring a venue to provide all three types of spaces simultaneously. 1, 2]

Instead, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) updated Code of Practice provides different models. The choice depends entirely on the venue's physical layout, resource limitations, and its ability to justify its choices under the Equality Act 2010. 1, 2, 3]

The Three Compliance Options for Event Venues

An event venue can legally comply with the guidance by choosing one of the following approaches: [, 2]

1. The Multi-Option Model (Single-Sex + Gender-Neutral + Disabled) 1, 2, 3]
This is the ideal approach recommended for larger, newly built, or renovated venues. []

• What they provide: Separate banks of male-only and female-only communal cubicles, completely separate self-contained gender-neutral rooms, and distinct disabled toilets. [, 2]
• The Legal Context: Single-sex spaces must be restricted strictly by biological sex. The gender-neutral rooms provide a legal fallback so transgender attendees are not left without facilities, preventing a claim of indirect discrimination. [, 2]

2. The Universal Gender-Neutral Model (No Single-Sex Spaces)
Venues—especially smaller ones or those with limited square footage—are legally allowed to have zero single-sex spaces. [, 2]

• What they provide: A row of entirely self-contained, individual rooms that anyone can use, alongside a separate disabled toilet. [, 3, 4]
• The Rules: To do this legally, each gender-neutral toilet must be a fully enclosed, private room lockable from the inside with its own sink. []
• What is illegal here: A venue cannot simply take an old communal bathroom (with shared sinks and a main door) and rename it "gender-neutral". Doing so compromises privacy and can trigger a sex discrimination claim from women. []

3. The Combined "Third Space" Model (Single-Sex + Dual-Use Disabled)
Small, older, or constrained venues often cannot build entirely new gender-neutral rooms. [, 2]

• What they provide: Biological male-only toilets, biological female-only toilets, and a disabled toilet. [, 2]
• The Rules: To ensure transgender attendees have a facility they can safely use, the EHRC permits venues to extend the use of the accessible/disabled toilet to act as the "third space" gender-neutral option. [, 2]
• The Catch: The venue must monitor this closely. If allowing non-disabled people into that space causes long queues or blocks disabled attendees from accessing it, it could breach disability discrimination laws. [, 3]

Summary Checklist for a Venue

• Disabled Toilets: Always mandatory under building regulations and accessibility laws.
• Single-Sex Toilets: Not compulsory for public services. However, if a venue chooses to provide them, they must be separated strictly by biological sex.
• Gender-Neutral Toilets: Not explicitly mandatory, but highly recommended as a protective legal buffer. If a venue bans trans individuals from single-sex spaces matching their gender identity, they must not leave them without any facility at all. They must provide either a dedicated gender-neutral room or a dual-use accessible toilet. []

I have wondered and keep forgetting to ask, but this AI generated overview says there is no obligation to provide single sex (different to work place requirements).

If this is accurate then can say, particularly "progressive" venues making it a point of trans allyship to make everything gender neutral and one disabled toilet.

Would this also apply to public toilets?

Interested in this, cos I worked in Bristol and lived in the area for many years, and was a regular visitor to the Watershed, although it must be ten years since I was last there. But I can picture it from the description, I remember the loos in the back corridor (I usually used them), one just outside the ticket barrier, and one beyond it. They had single sex loos, and they have chosen to downgrade them. Maybe it has to mean someone taking them to court for indirect discrimination.

The Old Fire Station in Silver St in Bristol has now got gender neutral toilets however they are converted from the ladies and wash basins are not in the cubicles. I haven’t been back since.

Our town has a Curzon cinema with single sex toilets, but it's in a traditional town and its clientele are mostly from an older generation. Thank goodness.

Edited to add: I tell a lie - it's actually a Picturehouse cinema.