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.

And we can all clearly see who the men are and who the women are in these scenarios.

Gotcha, thanks. 🌹

Also looking at this part (of the building regs)

a. Separate single-sex toilet facilities are provided. Universal toilets can be provided in addition to
single-sex provision and where space allows. All toilet accommodation should have clear and
appropriate signage.
b. Where space precludes single-sex toilet facilities from being provided, fully enclosed universal
toilets should be provided.
Available space for toilet accommodation will vary from building to building; once reasonable
provision is made for single-sex toilet facilities, any remaining space for toilet accommodation can
be considered for universal toilet provision.

it is clear that single-sex toilets should be the primary toilets.
I don’t know how many toilets there are in the new block but from your description, especially the part about the ones in the cinema part, it would appear that, even if they took down the extra signage on the old single-sex toilets (the ones you used), this is not the case?

"Watershed strive to make our toilets accessible for everyone"

No, you bloody well don't! Don't bullshit the public.

Unless you meant 'anyone' rather than 'everyone'. That might be nearer the mark.

Also, good luck @TemporarilyCantDoMyself , let us know how you get on and glad the more knowledgeable posters were able to help you draft a reply. I always appreciate the research and due diligence that keeptoiletssafe does. 🌺

@TemporarilyCantDoMyself Apologies, at work, so a quick reply…

All cubicles (f-t-c or not) should lead out on to a single sex environment. That is stated in ADT 1.22: ‘The layout when entering, exiting and using a toilet room or cubicle should cater for the safety, privacy and dignity of users. Cubicle doors should only open into single-sex toilet accommodation’.

It is interesting when looking at door gaps that it’s so obvious they shouldn’t be used in a mixed sex space. There are various sections that I could bring together from various documents but I wanted it straight in black and white from the HSE so I got it in writing.

This is what the HSE wrote to me in an email:
‘A single-sex cubicle can be built with a gap at the bottom or the top of cubicle partitions and on the cubicle doors as per Type C and Type D of AD T guidance.
These two types are clearly labelled as not self-contained and intended only for single-sex environments.’

Note that EHRC 13.123 states for venues wanting a toilet which has access for both sexes:
A service provider operates a shopping centre and decides to renovate the centre. It initially intends to only provide separate-sex toilets to improve the safety and comfort of users. This disadvantages trans people because it means that a trans person cannot access a toilet catered towards their acquired gender. They also note that this option may cause safety risks and distress for trans users if required to use the toilets designated for those of the same biological sex. The service provider therefore decides to also provide toilets in individual lockable rooms with hand basins, which can be used by people of either sex.

I don’t actually like the bit the EHRC added between the draft and the final version of this about ‘safety risks’ for trans users as I think it’s wrong and its addition causes an additional safety risk for everyone. However, designers of ‘gender-neutral’ toilets all want private f-to-c cubicles or rooms and don’t do risk assessments or think of why non-domestic toilets aren’t completely private in the first place.

If you are willing to hold off the reply, I can give you some more health and safety information.

I personally would also mention the website states their toilets purport to be for everyone, and whilst it’s great they’ve added universal toilets for those who don’t want to use the toilets for their sex, they’ve neglected the people you’ve mentioned above and this oversight isn’t in keeping with their statement of treating one another with kindness and understanding.
I would also mention you plan to contact the Charity Commission and building regulators.

Sorry not to answer you directly but you can see from the information posted after your post, that no, these toilets don’t meet the requirements either.

Nothing to add that hasn't already been said, but having lived in Bristol for nearly 30 years the place is now really pissing me off. Sure, bits of it have always been a bit skanky but now it’s just horrible, we have a stupid council who got in off the back of some dreadfully low turnouts and seem to favour tinkering around with ‘progressive’ window dressing rather than dealing with actual problems.
When they wanted public opinion on trans inclusion a few years ago I submitted a statement saying that it was indirect discrimination against many ethnic minority women in the city who would be excluded from spaces if males were allowed to use them, and that such woman were a far larger cohort than men in frocks. Of course, it made no difference as it was a foregone conclusion.
Rant over.

@ChequerToRed that’s what I can’t understand. Bristol is supposed to welcome asylum seekers & other cultures. Many of these women won’t want to share spaces with men (or men who are now identifying as women). So it’s not actually inclusive (in my opinion). There’s a lot of GenX and older women who also don’t feel included.

To add to my post that ‘However, designers of ‘gender-neutral’ toilets all want private f-to-c cubicles or rooms’ it appears that this venue have gone further and to make everything mixed sex have misappropriated single sex design that weren’t designed to be mixed sex.

So from what I have gathered (I think this is the case?), there’s multiple problems here. There’s no such regulated design as ‘gender-neutral’, the term is universal.

From what I think the designs are, the best way to solve this is to change the pictogram back on the single sex designs. Cheap and easy. Then carve the gender neutral cubicle designs up into safer designs - changing the doors and partitons - and designating more for women and single sex designs for those with disabilities (ambulant and even non ambulant where possible).

Accessible toilets that are unisex should be in as heavily monitored places as possible. This is probably in place already. Newly created universal toilet rooms should be the same.

If the venue had stuck to building regs this would not be a problem they now should fix for the safety of everybody.

They could create some fantastic toilet provision that is truly and properly inclusive for everyone.

As other posters mention asylum seekers, can I just add a few statements from Amnesty here about toilets:
‘Women also reported having to use the same bathroom and shower facilities as men. One woman told Amnesty International that in a reception centre in Germany some refugee men would watch women as they went to the bathroom. Some women took extreme measures such as not eating or drinking to avoid having to go to the toilet where they felt unsafe.
“If this humanitarian crisis was unfolding anywhere else in the world we would expect immediate practical steps to be taken to protect groups most at risk of abuse, such as women travelling alone and female-headed families. At a minimum, this would include setting up single sex, well-lit toilet facilities and separate safe sleeping areas. These women and their children have fled some of the world’s most dangerous areas and it is shameful that they are still at risk on European soil.”’
“We have learned from so many mistakes in the past that women are at a greater risk for sexual assault and violence if they don’t have separate bathrooms,” says Amnesty International’s deputy director for Europe and Central Asia.

Exactly. It’s all about the surface gloss of shiny performative ‘kindness’ and ignoring, or in the case of gender politics being actively hostile towards, the negative unintended consequences.

As well as the letter to the CEO, cc to the board of trustees reminding them of their responsibilities.

@Keeptoiletssafe I think the argument is that trans women are vulnerable & unlikely to harass another woman. That could be true but some women, and especially those fleeing war or domestic violence should not be expected to share facilities with anyone they don’t feel comfortable with.

I don’t know that asylum communities are especially sympathetic to the trans cause. So they don’t sit side by side naturally.

When they wanted public opinion on trans inclusion a few years ago I submitted a statement saying that it was indirect discrimination against many ethnic minority women in the city who would be excluded from spaces if males were allowed to use them, and that such woman were a far larger cohort than men in frocks. Of course, it made no difference as it was a foregone conclusion.
Yes, i filled out the consultation document and the (labour run) council responded to the fact that most people wanted to make sure that women had a right to single sex spaces by saying that they chose to ignore the results of the consultation.
We are run by f***ts.
I don't use the Watershed because it's full of Middle Class smuggerati. I use the Orpheus instead. No nonsense about loo allocation there. Ditto the newly built IMAX.

Is the Orpheus still going? I remember it well, gloriously old-fashioned!

It is! Perhaps tarted up a bit, but handy for the Westbury Tavern and Waitrose, very cheap and you can take in a mug of tea!

There was a little supermarket next door, I used to park my bike there.

I am aware. I have been looking at the viewpoints and facts for all groups over the last few years. The safety of transwomen in particular has dominated toilet discussions to the detriment of everyone in terms of design and provision.

An example was the consultation for England’s Document T, where Stonewall UK’s LGBT in Britain – Trans Report (2018), was cited in 11,866 responses (67% of all responses).

Stonewall and other allied organisations got together and coordinated a strong response from their supporters - which is obviously fine but distorts the consultation results so much that the results are misrepresentative of the uk population as a whole.

In Stonewall’s UK LGBT in Britain – Trans Report (2018) it states that almost half (48 per cent) of 733 trans people sampled don’t feel comfortable using public toilets through fear of discrimination or harassment. I presume, but it is unclear, that this means going into the toilets of the wrong sex. To put this in context, not liking public toilets is common. 80% of the 2,000 people polled in a Bloo-commissioned survey in 2024, who say they are uncomfortable and would only use a public toilet if it was completely unavoidable, but mostly due to hygiene concerns: pungent smells 60%, unflushed toilets 71% – and blockages 59%). This compares with 56% of the population who restrict their fluid intake before going out so they can avoid using a public toilet (RSPH, 2018). In this latter survey conducted by Populus, 20% of the 2,089 UK adults aged 18 or over, did not go out as often as they would like.

On reading of this Stonewall report
it shows the worst toilet account detailed was where a visit to the toilet became physical with people pushing another out of the washroom. Using biological sex for clarity, a man was pushed out of the ladies by two women when he refused to leave the women’s toilet, after it appears lots of shouting. The weight given to this one account of a man going in to the wrong sex toilet, needs to be contextualised with the verified incidents where safety has been compromised in non domestic toilets, within the whole population. My research is verified by such sources as reports from courts, police and coroners.

79% of responses for the Document T consultation mentioned safety concerns for trans/non-binary people and 75% mentioned safety concerns for women.
This meant that fewer than 5% of all responses mentioned safety concerns for one of the following groups: girls, children, men, disabled people, and boys. From my research children (boys and girls) and disabled people are vulnerable groups. Of course women are vulnerable too.

By the way, the analysis above has been published by the government, I didn’t work out these numbers, I investigated why what happens in real life did not bear any relation to the analysis of the consultation results.

So if you are still reading, the above affects the priorities the consultees give to toilet design. I won’t make this post any longer by discussing this in detail other than ‘gender-neutral’ (ie. open to both sexes) private design dominated too and it appeared only 12% wanted single sex toilets. Such a low figure has never been replicated anywhere else.

I really can’t stress how much I have looked into everyone’s safety and health in toilets over several years. Though I focus on the UK, I actually do have a report of an incident from several years ago in another country of a transwoman who was allegedly sexually assaulted in a toilet (do not have any details if it made court) but ironically it was in a private design, open to both sexes - the very design used more in this venue. I want everyone to be safe but provision needs to be based on facts and evidence, not those that shout loudest - for a worse design for health and safety for everybody.

In summary:
Why do we have a gap under public toilet doors? For health and safety
Why do we get rid of the gap when toilets are mixed sex? For privacy
What are we getting rid of by doing that? Health and Safety

Just popping in to say I'm still around but we've got electricians in the house today and they keep turning the electricity off and therefore the WiFi. Also very hard to get my head round anything while I'm tripping over workmen and wires! 😂

The Orpheus is lovely and very much still going but it's much farther away from our house, and we try and do things by bus these days which makes the Watershed a better option for us as it's only one bus and the Orpheus is two. Also DH prefers the Watershed because he likes the ambience.
I haven't told him yet that I'm taking them on over this! Partly because I'm not sure how much of a fight with them I'm up for.

DH will be totally supportive but a bit shocked if I go the whole hog and try and take them to court over it. 😂

As ever, thank you to KTS for your detailed and reliable information - it would be so easy to just have a generalised, furious, frustrated, justifiable but easily-dismissed 'go' at venues like the Watershed.

Advice from KTS and other well-informed posters mean that OP can challenge the venue with facts and figures on her side.

There's a vague idea in my head when I hear about venues [not this one, but lots of others] removing the single-sex toilet blocks - or at least the women's - and replacing them completely with mixed sex toilets.

Some vague ideas about the compliance - IANABRCI - I am not a building regs compliance inspector
There is a minimum number of toilets required in public buildings, I found this, it's a commercial website but they give the regs in full:
How Many Toilets Do You Need?
Interestingly, it looks like the BS Regs still refer to separate provision for men and women - which makes sense give that men's and women's toilets have different rates of throughput because men and women are <look away now TRAs😧> physically different. So:

When venues remove all single sex toilets and replace them with 'gender neutral'/'unisex' mixed sex ones, are they still complying with British Standard 6465-1:2006+A1:2009 – Sanitary Installations.
[which to the best of my knowledge apply to all of the UK, not just England as is the case with Building Regs Doc T]

Building Regs Doc T came into effect in 2024, so any newbuild in England must have separate men's and women's toilets, as long as there is space for them, and mixed sex toilets are an optional extra.

But I think Building Regs also apply to significant changes/refurb of existing buildings, so:
Is removing a block of toilets and replacing it with a number of building-regs compliant 'universal' toilets significant enough as 'building work' to come under the requirements of Doc T?
In which case it would mean deliberately changing an existing compliant single-sex configuration, to one which does not comply with building regs.

I think 'like for like' changes to toilets don't need planning permission etc., but I'm also vaguely aware that significant changes to the location of water supplies/hot water/waste do require permission, so
Since every 'universal' toilet cubicle has to have its own individual water/hot water/waste plumbing, does this require advance permission/checks for health and safety compliance of replacing existing toilets with new mixed sex ones?

What we need is our own crack team of Building Regs inspectors to check all these alterations to buildings, many of which are motivated by sheer spite in my opinion😠

What we need is our own crack team of Building Regs inspectors to check all these alterations to buildings, many of which are motivated by sheer spite in my opinion😠

Perhaps Pete the Plumber could re-train?

I think it can be pretty safely said that many of the alterations that have been made to change single-sex loos to mixed sex are not legal, and will contravene various regs. But they've all just gone ahead and done it anyway, like the Watershed.

I keep meaning to check out Home, the Manchester version of the Watershed, which is even more right-on. I used to go quite a bit, but haven't been lately.

This seems to have been forgotten/swept under the carpet:
1. The government published a technical call for evidence on toilet provision for men and women in October 2020. This followed concerns that increasing numbers of publicly accessible toilets were being converted into ‘gender neutral’ facilities with shared waiting and hand-washing facilities, causing safety and privacy concerns especially for women. Women need safe spaces given their biological, health and sanitary needs (for example, women who are menstruating, pregnant or at menopause, may need to use the toilet more often). Women are also likely to feel less comfortable using mixed sex facilities.
Toilet provision in buildings other than dwellings - GOV.UK

I was thinking more of Xena, armed with a sword, crossbow, copy of Doc T and a clipboard😁
but yes, Pete could do a good job.
Different outfit though please, Pete😬