theworriedwell
Doodledog
You’d better hope that if you ran a business you had enough money to build entirely new facilities, that the plumbing (not to mention the space) would allow you to have enough cubicles for all staff and (potentially) all customers, and that the layout of the building made it possible to do it so that the communal areas were safe - particularly if the facilities were being used by the public at night.
In older buildings that is often not possible, or is possible but prohibitively expensive, both in cost and in space needed.
New builds might be able to include special arrangements to mollify the ‘tiny minority who are the most marginalised group in society’, but existing buildings don’t always lend themselves to rearranging the plumbing.
People always suggest unisex enclosed cubicles but rarely think through the logistics.
Cheaper than the upsets, bad publicity and possible legal action. Both businesses I worked for were in listed buildings, one Victorian and one older than that. Amazingly it was done and everyone happy.
Well, a sample of two buildings is never going to change the law.
If we're quoting personal experience, I have worked in listed buildings which could not change the layout. as well as ones where there simply wasn't room to add another block of toilets, and the existing ones weren't large enough to take in the opposite sex.
As I say, new builds may be able to incorporate facilities that cater to the 'tiny minority', but there are other considerations if the building is going to be open in the evening. As an example, one I worked in recently had the Ladies near the outside door. It incorporated the disabled loo and the baby changing ones. The door was on a public footpath, and although the building belonged to a university, people passing through regularly got to know it was there, and some would use the loo on their way to the medical centre just behind it. Both the university and the medical centre were open late. The loos were not policed, but when they were the Ladies, it was obvious that men going in were trespassing, as they stood out.
Then the powers that be made the Ladies a 'gender neutral' loo. What does that even mean? At that point, anyone could go in without attracting attention, which of course they did, as it was handy for anyone leaving the building, as well as both male and female passers by. Women stopped using it after dark, instead crossing the campus to another building which had a designated Ladies, or going to the top floor where there was another (which always had a queue after this happened). So to accommodate a 'tiny minority' there was a lot of inconvenience to women - 50% of the population. Believe me, everyone was not happy.
When I was a student, many years ago, a friend of mine was assaulted in a city centre bar. The Ladies was along a corridor away from the main seating area, and luckily a barman saw a man lurking and followed him, in time to stop the assault from getting to rape. Had the loos been unisex (or so-called 'gender neutral) with men allowed in there, who knows what would have happened? Would everyone have been happy with that?
People use the loo differently on the basis of sex, not so-called 'gender'. There is no reason I can see why males can't use male facilities and females use the female ones. What they wear, and however they measure their 'gender' has nothing to do with their bodily functions. Women need to be safe when they are vulnerable (ie with clothing removed or in disarray) and to be spared embarrassment (eg when changing tampons or washing out moon cups) in front of males, whether those males have clothing associated with their sex or the opposite one. Why is that too much to ask?
Finally, can you explain what an inability to get around listed building laws, or to make a block of toilets positioned away from the seating area safe for women has anything to do with business acumen, please? I can't see it at all.
