Gender neutral toilet facilities are the subject of discussion in academic research, legislation and architectural briefs. Urban planners say any toilet away from home should be informed by the proportion of needs in society. Enter the gender neutral category of amenity as the solution that can best resist bias and discrimination. But maybe it doesn’t.
Nicole Kalms and Laura McVey argue that “the proposed legislative changes for the provision of ‘all gender’, ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘unisex’ toilets operate under an incorrect assumption that gender neutrality will lead to greater inclusion”.
The proposed legislative changes note that one in 500 people in Victoria identify as trans, but fail to note that one in two Victorians are women. Kalms and McVey claim that rather than offering inclusivity, it will further penalise those already disadvantaged in amenity design.
The issue of signage
Repurposing women’s public facilities or accessible toilets as gender-neutral is an ad hoc response to the real issues.
“This will multiply the ad hoc arrangements where a sign and/symbol on an existing ‘female’ or ‘disabled’ toilet provides a ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘all genders’ amenity, leaving the men’s facility intact”. Indeed, it will double men’s toilet options.
The article goes on to discuss different sections of the population including people who are homeless, and women from culturally diverse backgrounds. Public toilets are also places of personal care and of refuge from sexual violence. An important discussion paper which shows how the default to the male toilet is the norm – they remain the same. Women’s toilets have become the “adaptable” quick-fix place for all other groups. But at the cost to whom?
In summary
“We therefore suggest that current reform proposals for inclusivity do not go far enough, and put forward the need for a more ‘radical redesign of public sanitary facilities. Such a radical redesign, we argue, requires a needs based design ethos based on users’ requirements. This approach reiterates the importance of more inclusive design, but does so by considering and prioritising those most significantly and disproportionately impacted and neglected by current design.”
The title of the book chapter is, Commentary on Let Us Pee in The Feminist Legislation Project. An important discussion on how easy it is to exclude people in design, albeit unintentionally. Another reason for engaging in co-design and co-creation processes.