Toilets: Men’s, Women’s or Gender-Neutral?

[Fred in Skirts]

Just something else the government is getting it's hands into.....

Publicly accessible toilets in England are being reviewed by the government.

It says evidence shows that an increasing number are being converted into gender-neutral facilities, which “disadvantages” women who have specific needs and already face “excessive queues”.

Felix, who identifies as gender-fluid, prefers to use gender-neutral toilets and has felt unsafe in men’s loos. But campaigner Susan Cunningham says women need "separate same-sex facilities for their safety and security and comfort". Experts argue that access to public toilets needs rethinking to meet everyone's needs.

The government says its review will help “ensure there is a diversity of provision and facilities for everyone.

[moonshadow]

Susan Cunningham says women need "separate same-sex facilities for their safety and security and comfort".

Um-humm...

"Security and comfort..."

Well of course... gotta watch out for them crossdressing rapist... day go'in getcha!

Watch out for the boogie man too.... maybe Susan shouldn't leave home... it's a dangerous world out there!

[pelmut]

It says evidence shows that an increasing number are being converted into gender-neutral facilities, which “disadvantages” women who have specific needs and already face “excessive queues”.

Utter rubbish.  For a given amount of floor space, shared toilets allow more cubicals than separate toilets because there is less space taken up by duplicated washbasins, duplicated corridors, duplicated doorways etc.  It also means that women have access to cubicals that might otherwise be underused because they were in the 'gents'.

I have seen queues outside the 'gents' at peak pooing hour because they were afraid to use the spare cubicals in the 'ladies', so it's not just women who have to queue sometimes.

I responded to that questionnaire some weeks ago and the questions, and the assumptions they were based on, were as biassed as hell.

[Kirbstone]

Way back in the '80s I attended several dental courses run by a successful practitioner whose headquarters were atop an impressive building in Vancouver.
In one of his more expansive moments he referred to his upbringing in rural Saskatchewan and their domestic faciity out the back....'Out the back we had a FOUR HOLER!', meaning of course that the lavatory shed at the rear of his family home had a bench with four unsegregated places in it, complete with squares of newspaper hanging up. No plumbing of course.

I suspect it was gender-neutral and that we've come a long way since then.

Tom

[Faldaguy]

by Kirbstone » Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:31 pm

Way back in the '80s I attended several dental courses run by a successful practitioner whose headquarters were atop an impressive building in Vancouver. Did you get a chance to enjoy Stanley Park? Or, the non-gendered Wreck Beach?
In one of his more expansive moments he referred to his upbringing in rural Saskatchewan and their domestic faciity out the back....'Out the back we had a FOUR HOLER!', meaning of course that the lavatory shed at the rear of his family home had a bench with four unsegregated places in it, complete with squares of newspaper hanging up. No plumbing of course.

I suspect it was gender-neutral and that we've come a long way since then.

What parts "have come a long way"? Plumbing for sanitation seems a positive; I kinda like recycled paper -- but perhaps a bit softer than Dick Tracy's strip; but I'm not sure segregation in terms of gender specific is truly progress?

[Dust]

We made our bathrooms available to both sexes during the day in college. There were classrooms and male dorms/bathrooms on the same floor of the building, but not women's rooms. So we let the ladies use our bathrooms between classes. They also had the option of going down a couple floors to a single sex restroom. No issues. But we all knew each other. If folks are concerned with this kind of setup, make the stalls more secure with floor to ceiling partitions, i.e. walls. Have the urinals around the corner, with a sign as to what's there, and the standard partitions between them. No big deal. And shared sinks are no problem in my mind.

At other times that same bathroom was male only on that floor of the building, as guys were taking showers. Shower and changing facilities are the bigger issue, in my mind. You need separation, either separate rooms, or some kind of changing stalls. I have seen this even in single sex facilities, with a shower at the back of a small changing stall, so you could enter the stall, set your stuff down, strip, shower, dry off, get dressed, then exit the stall. If we are going to do this "gender neutral" stuff long term, this is probably the solution, but unfortunately it takes a lot more space to implement for lots of people, like in gyms and such. You end up needing more space per shower, but also more showers since the stall ends up occupied longer because the person is changing in there as well.

[Dust]

by Kirbstone » Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:31 pm


I suspect it was gender-neutral and that we've come a long way since then.

What parts "have come a long way"? Plumbing for sanitation seems a positive; I kinda like recycled paper -- but perhaps a bit softer than Dick Tracy's strip; but I'm not sure segregation in terms of gender specific is truly progress?

I read that as sarcasm...

Every private home one ever been in had only "gender neutral" bathrooms. Maybe one that was typically used by the male kids and another by the females, but that's it. No urinals, no signs that said "men" or "women."

[Dust]

It says evidence shows that an increasing number are being converted into gender-neutral facilities, which “disadvantages” women who have specific needs and already face “excessive queues”.

Utter rubbish.  For a given amount of floor space, shared toilets allow more cubicals than separate toilets because there is less space taken up by duplicated washbasins, duplicated corridors, duplicated doorways etc.  It also means that women have access to cubicals that might otherwise be underused because they were in the 'gents'.

I have seen queues outside the 'gents' at peak pooing hour because they were afraid to use the spare cubicals in the 'ladies', so it's not just women who have to queue sometimes.

I responded to that questionnaire some weeks ago and the questions, and the assumptions they were based on, were as biassed as hell.

They are also talking about getting rid of urinals in some places, somehow in the name of feminism and equality... The problem is, urinals are more space efficient than stalls, and I doubt they will try to keep them in uni-sex restrooms. They are probably also the reason that the men's room usually has a shorter line. Faster to use as well.

And yes, I have still seen plenty of lines in the men's room, both for the stalls and the urinals.

[pelmut]

Shower and changing facilities are the bigger issue, in my mind. You need separation, either separate rooms, or some kind of changing stalls. I have seen this even in single sex facilities, with a shower at the back of a small changing stall, so you could enter the stall, set your stuff down, strip, shower, dry off, get dressed, then exit the stall. If we are going to do this "gender neutral" stuff long term, this is probably the solution, but unfortunately it takes a lot more space to implement for lots of people, like in gyms and such. You end up needing more space per shower, but also more showers since the stall ends up occupied longer because the person is changing in there as well.

Some folk festival shower units are segregated by sex and take the form of an undressing corridor with a common entrance door and indivdual shower cubicals separated from the corridor by waterproof curtains.  Others are unsegregated with an individual exterior door to each cubical, with the cubical divided into changing and showering spaces by a waterproof curtain.  Both units are the same external size and both have the same number of showers.

Possibly the throughput of the corridor type is slightly higher if there is a rush, but it would soon get very cramped in the changing space; the security of valuables or clothing is better in the unsegregated type.  I see very little clear avantage to either type from the practical point of view.  Being both perfume-allergic and trangender, I cannot use the corridor type if anyone else is using it or likely to come in while I am there, so, in effect, it is inacessible to me during most of the day.

[rode_kater]

At the Sydney 2000 Olympics I recall seeing the trainers with the loos lined up and there were twice as many trailers for women as for men. However, since the urinals took up less space I imagine the actual number of "places" was probably similar. I always found the arrangement kinda clever and I don't recall seeing any queues.

[Fred in Skirts]

Many years ago [0] when I was staying at a camp ground in Savannah Ga. They had to close the men's bathroom and shower for major repairs. This left only the ladies facilities for both to use. There was no problem with anyone as both sexes used the same room at the same time. The shower, which was a large open area with multiple shower heads. Everyone was in plain view of every one else. There were stalls with doors for the toilets.

[0] this was some time in the early 90's....

[Sinned]

pelmut, my experience with events where there are a lot of attending persons is that the queues were not outside the gents toilets but the ladies. I have sometimes "ushered" MOH into the gents, much to the jealous looks from the other ladies, and stood watch outside the cubicle rather than see her wait for ages in the ladies' queue. Men generally go for a pee which is quicker to do hence they are in and out in a trice.

[pelmut]

pelmut, my experience with events where there are a lot of attending persons is that the queues were not outside the gents toilets but the ladies. I have sometimes "ushered" MOH into the gents, much to the jealous looks from the other ladies, and stood watch outside the cubicle rather than see her wait for ages in the ladies' queue. Men generally go for a pee which is quicker to do hence they are in and out in a trice.

I think it depends on the event.  If there are only short pee breaks in an otherwise continuous programme, the queue for the 'gents' will disperse quicker; but on a festival campsite in the early morning, the queue for the 'ladies' disperses quicker because there are fewer cubicals in the 'gents' in order to leave room for the urinals.

Your comment about your wife using the 'gents' proves my point that if all the cubicals were available to everyone, women would not have to wait so long.  By opposing shared toilets they are discriminating against themselves.

[Kirbstone]

Faldaguy,

Alas, in Vancouver, all work and little play. One afternoon our host did take a few of us down to his (motor ) boat in the Marina near the entrance to Stanley Park. Our boat trip didn't include wreck beach. (I'm a dyed-in-the-wool yottie, myself)
I did also get a brief look at the miniature railway in Stanley Park and a loco that looked very like Fred-in-Skirts's Avatar. Didn't get a ride on it, though, a shame

Tom
.

[Faldaguy]

by Kirbstone » Sat Dec 05, 2020 4:43 pm

Faldaguy,

Alas, in Vancouver....
I did also get a brief look at the miniature railway in Stanley Park and a loco that looked very like er-in-Skirts's Avatar. Didn't get a ride on it, though, a shame

Some of those the chaps making those scale trains, there and about the globe, are incredible -- a trip down memory lane with smiles. An off-topic worth a lot of space! Trains of all sizes seem to making a come-back as attractive modes of transport and entertainment. Good memories from the Devil's Nose in Ecuador; Puffing Billy in AU; and Driving Creek in the Kauri forests of North Is, NZ!