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.

I like to inform people as you know 😁

Dear Watershed,

Thank you for your response. I’m afraid it raises further concerns.

You state that the EHRC code “suggests” you must formally recognise these toilets as mixed‑sex. The code does not require organisations to remove single‑sex toilets, nor does it prohibit maintaining them. It also does not state that failing to convert a single‑sex toilet into a mixed‑sex one creates legal risk.

Your decision has effectively removed an accessible women‑only space. The only remaining single‑sex women’s toilet now requires entering the cinema area or seeking permission, which is not equivalent provision.

Please confirm:

• The specific part of the EHRC code you believe obliges you to remove single‑sex signage
• Whether Watershed intends to restore an accessible single‑sex women’s toilet

I value Watershed greatly, but this change has made the venue less accessible and less welcoming for women who prefer or require single‑sex facilities.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Excellent, another thread breaks out on X to make the world think MN is nothing but a refuge for cranks who have nothing in their lives but a toilet obsession.

I don't know or care about Watershed but it seems they've taken the safest way to negotiate the comically absurd EHRC 'guidance'. Take a moment to enjoy the EHRC explaining law to the select committee.

about:blank Dr Stephenson and the Select Committee

Interesting comment at 10:12, 'there is no criminal offence of using the wrong space'. She's correct, there isn't, no matter how much agitators and right-wing rags lie about it.

Some gems from this absurdist comedy.
Service providers are legally responsible
Service providers are not expected to enforce the law
Service providers can set whatever rules they like for their service
There is no legally reliable test to establish the sex of a service user
There is no criminal offence of using the wrong space

And similar observations that leave service providers saying 'wtf do we do to remain lawful and not subject staff to the stress of being toilet police.'

To call it a dogs breakfast is to be rude about dogs breakfasts. Expect many more services to follow the Watershed example.

Let's see what their insurers say.

You are not reading and taking in what I have written. From what I can see of this venue’s toilets, I disagree they have taken the safest way.

If collating loads of information about health and safety incidents in toilets makes me a crank so be it. I am campaigning to make toilets safer and to do that I have listened to everyone’s viewpoints. But I also look at academic articles and design solutions from around the world. I have read local newspapers around the country, coroners reports and police reports and done FOIs to get further information on statistics. Most of all I look at what happens in real life.

You may be unaware it is almost unheard of to be murdered in a non-domestic toilet. Scare-mongering on social media would suggest otherwise. However, dying in a non-domestic toilet is relatively common. It’s where you rush to when you feel ill. It’s also where you could have an overdose as it’s a common place to do illegal things. To stand a better chance of surviving a bad stroke, seizure, cardiac arrest, choking incident etc you need to be noticed on the floor of your cubicle. To take one example, British Transport Police data shows on average a person has died every 5 to 6 months in a station toilet for the last 10 years. It doesn’t break this down to design or how many were rescued. These deaths are from medical incidents or self harm. No homicides.

The reason this is relevant here is that their ‘inclusive’ design means total privacy which is more dangerous. ‘Inclusive’ is a misnomer - it’s least worst for healthy men. What I do know from investigating a lot of toilet deaths is that private design delays finding a person by hours or sometimes days.

Toilets are vulnerable places. That’s why there’s a special section just for them in the Sexual Offences Act (2003). That’s a whole other section of a very large report I have compiled with lots of facts and figures.

I really do know what I am talking about when it is about toilet design and safety. It’s also common sense.

Despite what you have said, it is very easy to be lawful. Just follow building regulations.

Link is broken, try again, do watch if you enjoy absurdist comedy

If toilets are not "safe spaces" anyway, as is being asserted up thread, everyone may as well use the correct toilet for their natal sex and have done with it.
There's no excuse for demanding any other arrangement or for spending money on changing perfectly serviceable Ladies' and Gents' to accommodate the preferences of a tiny minority.

It is really simple. Just use the gents with all the other blokes, there's a good chap.

Women campaigning for single sex facilities, services and spaces are 'cranks'.

TRAs having piss protests, topless demonstrations, and petitions about buckets to shit in are stunning and brave.