Flushing out inequality – why public toilets matter more than you think

It has always seemed very unfair that in many busy public spaces, such as London railway stations, theatres and concert halls, the men can just dash in and out (no queue) whereas there Is a long line of people patiently waiting for the amenities labelled for women. The length of this queue matters for nearby operations. I have seen theatre staff checking the queue outside the ladies’ loo to communicate when the curtain should be raised. Similarly with platform staff at a crucial train interchange. On that occasion the queue halved when someone with a RADAR key (granted to Blue Badge holders) allowed the ladies’ queue access to the accessible toilet.

In my childhood, there was no such thing as an accessible toilet in public spaces. Although there were campaigning organisations for improved facilities, legislation that forced more provision came about only with the Equality Act of 2010, with building regulations to match. Ideally an accessible toilet should be for the exclusive use of those it is designed for, not for those who nip into it to dodge another queue.

Designing toilets for everyone

The dimensions of these, as issued in the government guidelines Document ‘T’, published in Oct 2024, are 2,200mm long by 1,500mm wide (or 1,700mm), which allows room for standard wheelchair users. Document T specifies four types of toilet designs. The first two, known as ‘superloos’, have a washbasin: type A, for ambulant users with some limited ability, has grab rails and is ‘compliant with localities where accessible unisex facilities are needed’. Type B is similar to type A but of shorter dimensions and with no grab rails. Types C and D are for single sex use and have no washbasin. Type C is for the ambulant so has grab rails. Type D is for where single-sex spaces have shared washbasins.

I have noticed more and more of the superloos in the last year, those of type B with the wash basin. I guess these are the preferred option for those not wanting to use single sex toilets. I have also seen, in one restaurant, toilets differentiated only by type of toilet – picture the urinal and picture of toilet bowl. So the client’s choice is dependent on what they need to do rather than gender identity. What is not so acceptable, presumably, to transgender users, is traditional single sex spaces plus one type B toilet labelled ‘unisex’, because using the unisex space identifies them apart. Universal unisex is more acceptable, hence in London University premises I have seen rows of unisex type B toilets rather than single sex toilets.

Retrofitting historic buildings for modern toilet needs

However, there are critical choices to be made about how to re-make toilet provision in old buildings such as Oxford Colleges or London theatres built in the nineteenth century. Type B toilets take more space and users take more time in them. If the single sex spaces are all taken for unisex toilets, then the urinals are removed. This forces the men into an unaccustomed toilet queue, to visible discomfort. In a least one concert I attended in an Oxford college, this long queue meant the concert interval had to be lengthened.

Shopping centres in excess of 1000m2 must provide toilets:

One toilet per 500 male customers, plus one per every additional 1,000 male customers, or part thereof
One toilet per 500 female customers, plus one per every additional 200 female customers, or part thereof
Two urinals for up to 500 male customers, plus one for every additional 500 male customers, or part thereof
One washbasin for one male toilet, plus one for every five urinals
One washbasin for one female toilet, plus one for every two extra female toilets.

Shared washbasins are positioned in shared space outside the cubicles, and it is here that the risks of aggressive or predatory behaviour lurk. So the recent tendency of management to opt for superloos if space is available is now understandable.

But it is questionable whether customers like the abolition of single sex shared space. After public reactions to a refurbishment that imposed only superloos, the Barbican was forced to reinstate the single sex spaces. Women had pointed out that cubicle-only toilets produced much longer queues.

Toilet facilities as social spaces

Furthermore, the shared social spaces in toilets are important for interaction. On the male side, one recalls spy dramas or even rags to riches tales where the crucial conversation took place by the urinals. On the female side, the space around the washbasins offers a chance for interaction, for sharing grooming tips, or seeking solace in a relationship crisis. I have also recently seen it used by a group of four proudly trans youth, posing and taking photos of themselves in front of a conveniently big mirror there. That group will probably not be allowed in that space following the recent legal ruling on biological sex: they will have to go one at a time into a superloo cubicle.

It will be interesting to see whether the new ruling is implemented strictly by many toilet managers. I suspect that most will just put up a notice inside the toilet that behaviour not acceptable to the gender using that toilet will not be tolerated, and most of the public will not notice the trans individuals using the shared space provided they are conforming to the norms of toilet use of that gender.

Toilet behaviour of teenagers is notoriously difficult to manage. The current UK regulations state that all schools for those over the age of eight must have single sex changing rooms, as well as lockable unisex options.

Family changing rooms at public swimming pools are now the norm. These often have rows of showers for use after swimming. Toilets may be unisex or in the single sex spaces. On Mumsnet, various complaints and fears get voiced: why was that single man using the family space? Was he lost or was he predatory? What to do about the family that hogs a family cubicle by leaving clothes there while going swimming instead of putting them in the lockers? Were the holes drilled in the side of the cubicle for camera use?

Shared spaces seem safer when there are many other adults nearby on call. The most scary is using a single-sex space at a time when others are not around. I once had a terrifying experience when a male intruder entered a swimming pool changing room and exposed himself when I was alone there with a 12-year-old daughter.

Different toilet traditions around the world

Other cultures have long assumed shared space for body care. From Roman to Turkish baths, to Scandinavian saunas, there are communal rooms for sweating it out together. Roman towns even had designated places for citizens to relieve themselves in public in rows, with sponge wipes provided, although it is unclear whether or not these were used by women.

Our use of water flush toilets in cubicles is an extravagant use of resources. With ever increasing drought, even in southeast England, we should not be using purified drinking water to flush toilets. We need reengineer households to direct grey water (from washing machines and even from our gutters) into the toilet tanks.

In dry countries, sand rather than water may be used to dispose of solids. In the 1950s when my family was in Sudan, the toilet was outside, in a cubicle with a flap that opened into the road. After relieving oneself in the bucket under the seat, one covered it with sand, instead of a flush. Once a day, with great noise, the sanitary lorry came along the road, the flap was opened, the bucket seized and emptied. The sanitary gang were prison labour.

Cost, cleanliness, and cultural norms: the practical realities of public toilets

The cost of cleaning public toilets is often what forces local councils to close them or local businesses like garages to restrict them to those given a key. Truth to tell, it seems to be drunk men who misuse the sanitary ware that cause women to clamour for retaining single sex toilets. A more radical question is have we gone too far in refining the throne-like design of the toilet originally offered to Queen Victoria? Supposing it is actually more anatomically correct to relieve yourself when squatting like we do as children or as the great apes do. And for women too, even peeing in this position would be more comfortable except that we in Britain have been potty trained out of it.

In France, the toilette a la turque, or toilet used squatting used to be very common. It was assumed to be more hygienic than sanitary ware that required sitting because the squatting customer’s body did not touch the porcelain. A toilet brush was also supplied with the strong social norm that every customer should clean up after use. The a la Turque name shows that there was awareness this type of toilet comes from the Middle East. Indeed, in the airports of the Gulf and Southeast Asia, seated and squatting toilets are usually provided in alternate cubicles.

In France, public toilets are often dirty because they are not often cleaned, and toilet paper is often not supplied. This does not affect men who can use the pavement pissoir (enclosed urinals situated in the streets) but women often complain and prefer to buy a coffee and use facilities there. The problem is one of the cost of paying for toilet staff. The solution is to make the customer pay, as with the ‘spend a penny’ access that used to prevail in British public toilets. This has mostly been abolished in Britain, but then so has the provision of toilets, especially in small towns making cuts to public expenditure. In France, it is usual to pay €1 for toilet access, even at the large railway stations, but then there is often no toilet paper.

The economics of public toilets is complex. The story of the toilet will not end with the type B superloo in Britain.