Editorial 22/09: Unisex Toilets
Student Direct was fascinated to learn about the introduction of unisex toilets into our Students’ Union building.
The ‘non-gendered’ facilities will be provided for all those men who do not ‘self-identify’ as men, and all those women who do not think of themselves as women. This potty parity is good news for all those students who’ve always fancied a bit of titillation in the bathroom, but may have been put off by the awkwardness of entering the Ladies’ or Gents’ hand in hand.
There are of course those for whom the idea of such communal conveniences fills them with dread, most importantly among certain religious groups on campus, while Student Direct feels pretty certain that the multitude of young ladies who congregate to powder their noses (and the like) in the toilets will feel less than enthusiastic about doing so in front of their male classmates…Political correctness gone mad?
Loading ...
Manchester, United Kingdom
September 30th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Since when did Student Direct turn into the Daily Mail?
A shame that this paper is more concerned with stirring up this ridiculous notion of ‘pc gone mad’ than recognising that beyond the fuss, this move is just a way to ensure that a certain group of people feel more comfortable and accepted in our environment.
Besides, come Pangaea everyone uses the same toilets anyway, rest of the time the union is so dead that there might as well just be one cubicle for the entire bar.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I’m sure Student Direct haven’t turned into the Daily Mail, EasyToPlease. Maybe they’re just the ones that pay ‘em?!
October 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I used to work for the University of Arts Students’ Union and when we purposely built uni-sex loos in one of our bars, Westminster Council rejected our license because they said, unisex loo’s exacerbate male/female fighting when it comes to washing their hands under the influence of alcohol.
Seriously. We had to convert them into two before we could sell alcohol in the bar.
Bonkers.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
EasyToPlease - The Daily Mail is an abomination of a newspaper that relies on scaremongering shock headlines to make its point. They rely on stories such as this one to spread their agenda of hate and ensure that the obligatory cry of “PC GONE MAD!” springs up in the press.
The Women’s Officer has made an unnecessary, outlandish move that is of little practical benefit to the trans community. The problem is not with the good intention but with the small-minded, tokenism of the implementation.
When the wider public read about the toilet rebrand many will despair at what they see as an unnecessary change and be confused by the outlandish implication that any trans student who went into a different toilet would immediately be met with “abuse and violence”. Ultimately this leaves them with negative connotations of those who identify as trans.
The Women’s Officer should really treat the subject with the delicacy that it deserves and consider how her actions will play in the media. I fear that this coverage will actually have made it more uncomfortable for trans students to use Union facilities now that so much attention has been drawn to them.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
It wasn’t that long ago when there were different toilets for white and black people also. It’s good to see some people are growing up. In Sweden most toilets are just that - toilets. It’s absurd that we still impose this “you can’t use this toilet, your type must find a toilet designated for your gender” attitude on everyone. We all do the same things in them anyway!
October 1st, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I wonder if Susannah Birkwood also thinks that provision of wheelchair access for disabled people, providing interpreters for asylum seekers or even allowing gay couples to join in civil partnerships are also examples of political correctness gone mad?
Or is she more choosy about which minority groups she chooses to belittle?
I’m a trans student who has studied in Manchester for the past 5 years and I’m delighted that Jeniie Killip and the Student Exec have decided to take some decisive action on this issue and they are to be congratulated for doing so.
On a personal level, I’m one of those lucky trans people who blends seamlessly into society, I’m never mistaken for my birth gender and I’ve never had any problems at the Academy or indeed elsewhere in Manchester. However for many trans people, especially those early in transition, the issue of public toilets can be a real nightmare and I’ve heard many stories of ridicule, harassment and violence being directed towards trans people. And I’ve also experienced such things when I return to my home town where many people know of my background as a trans person. So while this issue may effect just a small number of students, we still have a duty both in society in general and more specifically with-in the Students Union to protect the rights of minority groups and in this instance to protect the rights of trans students to use the loo without fear of ridicule or harassment.
All that being said, I’m not sure that Un-gendered toilets are the best way to achieve that aim. Personally, I’d like to see the retention of gendered toilets, but with the addition of a Trans-Friendly symbol T:) on the doors. I think this would acieve more. It would respect the sensitivity of those people who may object to sharing a toilet with the opposite sex but at the same time be welcoming to those people who have a gender identity that is different to the one they were assigned at birth. And in a wider context a trans friendly symbol may be more readily adopted by other organisations than Un-gendered toilets. And if such a symbol was adopted on a national scale then it would surely be another step in obtaining equal rights for one of the most marginalised groups in society.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Helen Mcneilson, it’s more than a little offensive to be comparing, on the one hand, gender-specific toilets, and apartheid on the other. If you’re going to state a progressive point of view, perhaps do it with a less regressive argument?
October 1st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
This is an example of political correctness gone MAD! And yes, I said ‘mad’, and no, it’s not a discriminatory term as Jennie Killip argues to the ridicule of the BBC journalist. There are in fact no officially classified ‘mad’ people on the census I might offend. It’s patronising to mentally disabled people to suggest that the word ‘mad’ in such context discriminates against them, just as it is patronising for trans students to suggest that they are incapable of using regular toilets. Finally, of course, Manchester University students have done nothing at all to warrant the suggestion that they might abuse the trans student minority in the toilets or elsewhere.
Of course, clamp down on discrimination wherever it occurs. But changing toilet procedures, and having signs up warning “do not discriminate here!” is superfluous almost to the point of being insulting to the innocent student community. Killip and co. should find something better to do with their time. A student was raped recently, surely this issue is infinitely more deserving of her attention.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
Hmmm…..thank you Phil for educating us on these issues! Your lack of understanding truly demonstrates that you are a gentleman who has never experienced intolerance or prejudice in your life!
It’s all very well for you to say clamp down on discrimination when it occurs…….but why wait until it happens and then respond in a re-active manner? It’s about being pro-active and creating an environment and mind-set in our student population that says such discrimination is not acceptable in the first place! You suggest these measures send out a message that Manchester students have done something to warrant such action? I disagree…it simply demonstrates that Manchester students are not willing to accept intolerance in their Student Union. And thats an important message that will hopefully be adopted by others in society.
And while I’m not fully convinced that De-gendered toilets are the best solution, I still think the Student Exec are to be congratulated for taking a lead on the taking a leak issue
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
There is a lot of talk about transgendered people feeling uncomfortable in public toilets but what about other people - as the BBC report showed some women are uncomfortable with the idea of degenderised toilets as are some men!
Whilst i sympathise completely with any member of society who is discriminated against, i have to say that the issue of the toilets is beyond ridiculous. Surely education on the matter - explaining what it means to be transgendered is better than token moves such as this!
Also, well done to Student Direct for reporting this and not shying away from controversy.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
[...] and “Toilets with urinals”. The local students newspaper, Student Direct, carried the following editorial in its September 22nd [...]
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
There is no need in todays society to have any kind of separation between the sexes. It is time we realised that we are all equal and get treated as such.
Unisex toilets shouldnt be a shouted about issue, it should be the norm.
The problems come from separating people. Anyone who thinks that separation can be a way forward is deluded.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
sorry guys but your article is rubbish. (i’m not going to intellectualize it)
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Correction - This move was agreed unanimously by UMSU, which at the time included Student Direct editor Susannah Birkwood. The only real controversy in this story is that she seems to have changed her mind on this issue.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
What an appalling editorial. I really had expected better from students at a supposedly serious university.
Instead we get this bigoted response by the editor of this newspaper and some of the transphobic responses. I am transgendered and use the ladies all the time despite my birth certificate saying I am male. I have never in 25 years had any problems nor had anyone complain!
There are also plenty of places where mixed loos are the norm anyway.
Be ashamed you pathetic, transphobic bigots; University College London has had mixed toilets for ages and no-one has ever made any fuss about that. I thought Manchester was supposed to be a right-on place full of cool students, whilst London was full of “southern softies”. Looks like it is Manchester which is full of transphobic bigots, talking out of where the sun don’t shine. Obviously the place is really about a cool as an old people’s home.
Pathetic drivel, think before you write next time. Standards of student journalism really have reached rock bottom.
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:56 am
I really despair at this!!
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/c/1069339_toilet_signs_too_pc?page=2&page_size=50
I challenge those of you who have doubted the need to take action on this issue to read the comments posted on the MEN website! I’m absolutely shocked and saddened at the ferocity of abuse levelled at trans people in some of those posts…….its the behaviour hateful, ignorant and vicious buffoons! Now imagine if that level of abuse was being levelled at you everyday….not as a result of anything you’ve said or done…..but simply because of who you are?
Make’s you think, doesn’t it?
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Hmmm…How come everyone meekly accepted the *engendering* of toilets without question, but as soon as somebody proposes the *degendering* of one, everybody goes potty?!
Well done, Jennie Killip for having the courage to expose a very real issue both for trans people and also for people who don’t, won’t or sometimes can’t, conform to bi-polar gender norms.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am
I have little more to add here to what has already been said, but to point out to all the people outraged at the degendering that there are FOUR sets of toilets in the student union, and ONE of them is gender neutral. Anyone who would like to use gender neutral toilets can, anyone who would like to use gendered toilets can. I really don’t get the problem here.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Well done, Jennie and others involved! It’s a small move but a positive one. I think Birkwood and her editor friends must have slept through the equality and diversity talks. This editorial is bigoted hysterical nonsense, written by bigoted hysterical idiots
October 4th, 2008 at 12:30 am
It was my understanding that this change was designed as a pilot to test the water with a view to expanding the scheme. So the problem is more a conceptual one as to where this notion will lead rather than simply the matter of one set of toilets out of 4.
Also it unfortunately appears to have had the opposite effect to that which was intended, it has led to the public beratement of transgendered and seems to have put them in the public eye where the narrow minded and bigotted now feel they have more reason and cause to have a go at them. So great plan there Jennie, it seems in attempting to avoid transgendered people suffering abuse and violence you have put the issue to the fore and opened them up to even more.
It might have been a better idea to simply create some extra unisex toilet facilities without the public attempt to change how people saw their toilets. That way they could have had somewhere to feel free from persecution and it could have avoided all this adverse publicity. But maybe the publicity of this act and appearing to challenge the norms of society was more important to Jennie than the real needs of those she claims to be concerned with. Or maybe she simply didn’t have the foresight to see that this move might be an unpopular one which would lead to the targetting of transgendered.
October 4th, 2008 at 10:10 am
As I understand the plans for expansion, that was for other union buildings (Barnes-Wallis, I presume), not to convert all toilets in the building to be gender neutral. Most women in support of gender neutral toilets would have been uncomfortable with gendered toilets removed entirely, including me, and for that matter including Jennie Killip, who has spoken publicly about it, but this was never the intention.
Also, the creation of extra facilities seems incredibly wasteful. Building an entirely new toilet block, requiring major structural alterations and probably the shutting down of several parts of the union for months, would certainly not protect the trans community from claims of undue privileges, would it?! So, building a new toilet block, or just resdesignating one quarter of the current toilets? Which is more sensible?
Furthermore, this move was not unpopular until someone started claiming that all the toilets were going gender neutral and men would be able to get into the “women’s” toilets, which is demonstrably false, and it was picked up by the BBC. The BBC conveniently ignored the fact that it was only one set of toilets because otherwise it would have been a non-story. Having spoken to lots of fearful women on this issue, I’ve found that people are much more supportive when they discover they can still use gendered toilets. A lot of cisgendered people are perfectly happy using both, such as me.
I find it hard to believe that you think Jennie tried to get publicity about this - no-one really knew about the changes until this editorial, did they?
October 6th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
So what is going to stop drunken, lecherous men who want to go snoop in the ladies? How about sexual predators who could use the toilets to wait for a vulnerable woman to come in? If I walked into a ‘unisex’ toilet and was confronted by four or five men, even if they were no threat I would certainly feel very intimidated. This is an incredibly insensitive idea.
Without gender specification anyone could make the claim they ‘feel’ like the other gender for the day. If a man goes into the ladies toilets people notice - if that stops happening sex crimes are going to soar.
This is no way to integrate the trans community. If you think making the majority of the population change the traditional male/female toilets to accommodate an INCREDIBLY small minority of people is going to give you a reputation boost, you have been sadly misinformed. Don’t you think people deserve a bit more privacy/safety?
This is just absurd. I oppose it 100%.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Sarah - As others have already pointed out, ‘unisex’ toilets are common in many European countries. Virtually all of the ones I’ve used, in various European countries, have no urinals; just a row of cubicles, so everyone has privacy.
As far as I am aware, sex crimes are no more common in those countries than in the UK. As is often the case in the UK, fear of crime is disproportional to the actual risks.
I think the British obsession with having separate toilets for men and women is probably a hangover from Victorian times.