1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

Beyond A Binary CisternUnderstanding Gender Segregation in Public

Toilets within the United Kingdom

The University of Sheffield Laura Jamieson

Abstract

As one of the few remaining gender segregated spaces the public toilet represents a site of conflict in which gender expression is policed. In this essay I examine the potential conflicts and alliances between gendered bodies in public toilets within the United Kingdom. This includes the ongoing struggle for equitable provision of toilet facilities between women and men, as well as the more recent debate surrounding the inclusion of transgender users in public toilet space through the introduction of gender neutral toilets.

To support these discussions, this work draws on theories of dirt and disgust, asserting that notions of dirt are used to support systems of categorisation and uphold the illusion of the cisgendered male form as the ideal or normal body template. This essay draws on the findings of the Around the Toilet project to demonstrate that transgender users inclusion does not negatively impact the experiences of other user groups. Furthermore, this essay concludes that truly equitable provision of space for all genders can be achieved only by dismantling the binary systems of gender that reinforce logics of domination and hierarchy.

Contents

Introduction 01

Chapter 1 Taking the Piss

1.1 Equitable Toilet Space 04 1.2 A State of Decline 05 1.3 Barriers to Potty Parity 06

Chapter 2 The Privilege of Disembodiment 2.1 Public and Private Spheres 09 2.2 Clean and Dirty Bodies 10

Chapter 3 Conflicts and Alliances

3.1 The Fight for Space 14 3.2 The Around the Toilet Project 15 3.3 Safety 15 3.4 Religion 15 3.5 Confusion 16 3.6 Provision 16

Chapter 4 Preventing Polarisation

4.1 Binary Thinking 19 4.2 Dichotomy in Design 20

Conclusion 24

Glossary 25

Bibliography 26

1

Introduction

In recent years there has been an increased focus on transgender rights and activism, this has contributed to the highly politicised nature of the public toilet despite the universal and unequivocally mundane nature of elimination.1 Therefore, an understanding of the biopolitics underlying the public toilet can be seen as a useful tool in deconstructing the binary systems of classification that subjugate marginalised populations. As Kate Bornstein states, “the choice between two of something is not a choice at all, but rather an opportunity to subscribe to the value system, which holds two presented choices as mutually exclusive alternatives. Once we choose one or the other, we’ve bought into the system that perpetuates the binary.” 2 In this dissertation I will examine the intersections between human bodies, the built environment and gender hierarchies, situating my research within the public toilet. By focusing on the United Kingdom this work locates itself within a historically and geographically specific narrative of the connections between gender, space and society’s relationship with the human body.

In the 1970s female architects and planners such as Matrix, a female architecture practice and research group, began to critically examine the inherent assumptions in architectural practice.3 Through this process they started to outline the ways in which the female perspective had been underrepresented within the built environment.4 Within the UK much research has since been conducted by feminist scholars and groups like the Women’s Design Service to build upon this pioneering work.5 One focus of this research has been on the ways in which women are disadvantaged with regards to the provision of public toilets in the UK. Feminist scholars like Clara Greed have speculated that this inequality of provision derives from a separation of public and private spheres during the Victorian era, and has since been perpetuated by the failure of built environment professionals and policy makers to take seriously the experiences of women.6 Whilst others, such as Judith Plaskow, contend that notions of dirt and disgust have been used within Western society to control the access of marginalised groups to public space.7 Furthermore, in her work ‘Gender Trouble’, Judith Butler asserts that gender itself is an invented concept which has been used to assert patriarchal dominance, arguing that there are no essential gender traits and that notions of gender difference are maintained by existing power structures.8

Despite the significant research produced aimed at outlining the inequalities women face in toilet provision there has been a lack of quantifiable progress in improving toilet access for women in the UK. However, recent trans-activism has reopened the public debate around toilets. The central narrative of this debate revolves around the supposedly conflicting needs of cisgendered women and transgender people and has sparked controversy within the media and fuelled transphobic rhetoric.9 I contend that trans-exclusionary positions do little to further the goal of ‘potty parity’ for women and instead fuel a dangerous myth that there exists a universal and homogeneous female experience.10 By considering the experiences of users across the gender spectrum, and the impact of their inclusion upon women’s provision in particular, I assert that this debate can be reframed as an opportunity to address the historical management of marginalised populations through public toilets.

2

Initially, in chapter 1, I support my position by outlining the importance of public toilet provision and in particular its significance to women. Following this, I demonstrate that there has been a significant and sustained reduction in the provision of public toilets over the last several decades.

Following this, in chapter 2 I detail the potential barriers to attaining equitable provision of public toilets for women in the UK, analysing the reasons for the existing inequality in provision for women through both critical historical feminist and psycoanalistical perspectives. In particular, I will expand on the work of Mary Douglas, examining how investing social occasions with dignity by hiding organic processes has contributed to a withholding of this dignity from marginalised human bodies.11 In chapter 3, I examine the conflicts and alliances between social movements in the fight for equitable toilet access. Public toilets provide a site for exploring the intersections between different social groups and in particular the connections between feminism and transgender activism. The Around the Toilet (ATT) project is an empirical study which focuses on the experiences of people from user groups whose voices are often lacking from the design process.12 Using the finding from the ATT project as evidence I argue that the inclusion of transgender bodies in public toilets does not negatively impact the experience of women or other user groups.13 Furthermore, I suggest that gender neutral toilets (GNT) may be one of the solutions and examine the way that many of the common arguments against GNTs do not account for the diversity of experience of users and instead are flawed with the homogenisation of the user experience.

Finally, in chapter 4 I will propose that the introduction of GNTs into public space provides an opportunity to move beyond binary methods of vision and rectify historical injustices within public toilet provision. In dividing human bodies along historically and culturally specific lines of gender we perpetuate identities without true meaning or definition: man and woman. The unspoken space within these titles has been infiltrated with a harmful rhetoric that has taken root and multiplied, spreading division and polarising discussion. Judith Butler describes this as a ‘ grid of cultural intelligibility through which bodies, genders, and desires are naturalized”.14 I will argue that as a society we must overcome the notion of binary identification systems within spatial practice in order to truly confront the underlying ideologies of inequality and domination that remain pervasive within our society.

3

1 Refer to glossary for definition of elimination.

2 Kate Bornstein, Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us (London: Routledge, 1995), p.101.

3 Spatial Agency, ‘Matrix Feminist Design Co-operative’, Spatial Agency, <https://www.spatialagency.net/database/matrix.feminist.design.co-operative>[accessed 20th September 2020].

4 Jos Boys, ‘Women and the Designed Environment: Dealing with Difference’, Built Environment, 16 (1990), 249-56 (p. 249).

5 Spatial Agency, ‘Women’s Design Service’, Spatial Agency,<https://www.spatialagency.net/database/why/political/womens.design.service> [accessed 20th September 2020].

6 Clara Greed, Inclusive Urban Design: Public Toilets, (Amsterdam: Architectural, 2003),p. 71.

7 Judith Plaskow, ‘Taking a Break: Toilets, Gender, and Disgust’, South Atlantic Quarterly,115 (2016), 748-754 <https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-3656147> (p. 752).

8 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, (London: Routledge, 1990), p. 24.

9 Refer to glossary for definitions of cisgendered and transgender.

10 Kathryn Anthony and Megan Dufresne, ‘Potty Privileging in Perspective: Gender and Family Issues in Toilet Design’, in Ladies and Gents: Public Toilets and Gender, ed. by Olga Gershenson and Barbara Penner, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2009) 48-62 (p.58).

11 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, (London: Routledge, 1966), p. 12.

12 Charlotte Jones and Jen Slater, Around the Toilet: A Research Project Report About What Makes a Safe and Accessible Toilet Space (Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University, 2018), p. 33 <https://doi.org/10.7190/9781843874195> [Accessed 05 September 2020].

13 Ibid.

14 Butler, Gender Trouble, p. 151.

4

Chapter 1Taking the Piss

1.1 Equitable Toilet Space

The importance of access to public toilets is often overlooked, in fact there is currently no law within the UK that legally requires local authorities to provide toilets at all.1 Yet toilet accessibility has implications for public health, regional economic development, social mobility, transport systems and sustainability.2 If the government is to reach its goals of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 it will need to promote public transport as well as cycling and footpath networks, the practicalities of using these systems will be at least partially reliant on adequate toilet facilities.3 As Judith Plaskow states, “Access to these public spaces is a prerequisite for full public participation and citizenship”.4 The ability of a person to access public toilets is directly correlated with that person’s ability to navigate public space, move freely between and through cities and participate in daily life. Therefore, it is important that as designers we critically analyse the purpose and impact for all users, including all genders within these spaces.

Appropriate access to toilets in public space is of particular significance to women as they: generally need to urinate more regularly: may menstruate, are more likely to wear restrictive clothing: are more likely to suffer from urinary tract infections, are generally less likely to urinate in the street than men and are also more likely to be in a caring role.5 Similarly, some women may experience pregnancy and women also make up a larger proportion of elderly people in the UK than men do, both of which require more frequent use of toilets. Due to these more complex patterns of use women on average spend longer on the toilets than men, on average 90 seconds for women and 60 seconds for men, and use toilets more frequently than men.6

Despite these additional needs women are currently underrepresented with regards to toilet provision in the UK. Research conducted by Ghent University determined that the average toilet floor plan can accommodate 20-30% more toilets when using cubicles and urinals than using cubicles alone.7 This could at least partly explain why studies suggest that the current provision ratio is 2:1 in favour of men, with each toilet block likely to contain half as much provision for women as men.8 Equally facilities often do not meet the needs of women with children and caregivers. Standard cubicle sizes are not wide enough to accommodate assisting other people and do not allow for appropriate supervision of children during use. Similarly, toilet cubicles with sanitary bins are the same size as those without which creates additional mobility problems.9 As well as this, facilities do not always include baby changing spaces and guardians may be faced with the social dilemma of bringing children into toilets that do not match their gender. Whilst these problems are not unique to women, they disproportionately affect women and are symptomatic of a society in which the traditional labours of care associated with femininity are not valued as productive and constrained to the private rather than public realm.10 However, this inequality also has negative consequences for men, for example sanitary bins are generally only included in female toilets despite the fact that men may also need to use them to dispose of wet wipes, sanitary pads, nappies and medical waste.

5

1.2 A State of Decline

Currently within the UK public toilets are not taken seriously as a human right by planning authorities and policy makers. Whilst the 1936 Public Health Act allowed local authorities to provide public sanitary conveniences it did not make it compulsory to provide them. There is also no specific fund allocated for the provision or maintenance of public toilets which further drives the defunding of these services in a time of national austerity.11 This has made public toilets an easy target when local authorities face budget cuts, leaving 37 local councils with no council maintained toilet facilities at all.12 As shown below in Figure 1 the UK government’s commitment to constructing public toilets was at its peak during the late Victorian era. Examining data from more recent public toilet surveys conducted within London, it can be seen that in the last two decades there has been a sharp decrease in the number of publicly funded toilets. See Figure 2.

As shown there has been a consistent reduction in public toilet provision for several generations with no impetus upon planning authorities to provide new sanitary infrastructure. Information on toilet provision kept by each local authority varies, therefore it has been difficult to produce a recent study to compare with the statistics shown in Figure 2, however Greed’s assertion that as of 2003 “over 50% of all public toilets had closed since 1995” suggests that the decline seen within London is even more apparent nationwide.13 As discussed, reductions in the public toilet stock are likely to disproportionately disadvantage women due to their greater reliance on them when existing in public space and the existing inequality in provision. This may lead to people increasingly relying on private rather than public provision, creating the potential for geographical inequalities as provision becomes driven by profit rather than public needs.14 Futhermore, it also curtails women’s participation in the city due to planning needed around toilet needs. As researchers such as Jos Boys have shown, this has an even greater impact upon women with disabilities.15

Figure 1: Public Toilet Survey, London(Graham Don, 1961)

6

Figure 2: Public Toilet Survey, London(Health and Public Service Committee, 2011)

1.3 Barriers to Potty Parity

Despite prolonged campaigns for potty parity within the UK, there remains significant barriers to implementation. Greed argues that women’s needs are not reflected in the design of public space because their voices are underrepresented within the urban design process.16 Although women represent roughly half of the population, and this percentage begins to increase with age, and within the UK account for 60% of eligible voters their physiological needs remain significantly underrepresented in the built environment.17 In 2010 a study found that only 5% of professional roles within the construction industry were held by women, with women also being less likely to be promoted to positions of seniority.18 This trend also continues into positions of government and policy making.19 However, another significant barrier when looking at potty parity is the impact of female socialisation. Haslanger argues that women are not born but rather “casually constructed”.20 Haslanger’s interpretation of gender perceives it is a socially produced identity in which feminine and male traits are learned behaviours. Similarly, Kate Millet supports this concept of socially constructed genders, attributing gender to “essentially cultural, rather than biological bases”.21

At the macro scale female socialisation manifests in pressures upon female professionals working within the built environment to not challenge agreed social norms due to fear of economic repercussions. This suppression can limit the voices of females who work within the design of public toilets leading to a largely unchallenged male narrative dominating planning and design policies and focusing on street urination, crime and cost cutting.22 At the micro scale, female socialisation is evident in the self policing of gendered toilets. Women will often wait in long queues when trying to access toilets whilst there remains little or no queue for the men’s toilets, yet there is no law in the UK which dictates who may enter any given restroom.23 A YouGov UK survey conducted in 2017 found that 59% of women who responded regularly queued for a toilet compared to 11% of male respondents.24 Queue times are important because there are serious health implications to ‘holding it in’ and deliberate dehydration, both found to be common practices for those who fear not being able to access toilets in public space.25 Whilst these issues are not taken seriously as public health concerns in the UK, where wait times can reach up to 30 minutes, in New Zealand it is considered to infringe upon a person’s human rights if they have to wait longer than 3 minutes for public toilets.26

7

1 House of Commons, The Provision of Public Toilets (London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2008) p. 3.

2 Clara Greed, Taking Stock: an Overview of Toilet Provision and Standards (paper presented at the World Toilet Conference, Belfast, September 2005), p. 14.

3 Clara Greed, ‘Join the Queue: Including Women’s Toilet Needs in Public Space’, The Sociological Review Monographs, 67 (2019), 908-926<https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026119854274> (p. 909).

4 Judith Plaskow, ‘Embodiment, Elimination, And The Role Of Toilets In Struggles For Social Justice’, CrossCurrents, 58 (2008), 51-64 (p. 52).

5 Elizabeth Mueller and others, ‘Gender differences in 24-hour urinary diaries of asymptomatic North American adults’, Journal of Urology, 173 (2005), 490–492<https://doi.org/0.1097/01.ju.0000149947.28100> (p. 490).

Gail Ramster & Jo-Anne Bichard, Publicly Accessible Toilets: An Inclusive Design Guide (London:Royal College of Arts, 2011), p. 26.

6 Gail Ramster, Clara Greed and Jo-Anne Bichard, ‘How inclusion can exclude: The case of public toilet provision for women’, Built Environment, 44 (2018), 91-115 (p. 99).

7 Ghent University, ‘No more queueing at the ladies’ room: How transgender-friendliness mayhelp in battling female-unfriendly toilet culture’, Sciencedaily, 2017 <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170714142749.htm> [accessed 10 September 2020].

8 Royal Society for Public Health, Taking the P*ss: The Decline of the Great British Public Toilet(London: Royal Society for Public Health, 2019) p. 5.

9 Greed, Join the Queue: Including Women’s Toilet Needs in Public Space, p. 916.

10 Berenice Fisher and Joan Tronto, ‘Towards a Feminist Theory of Caring’, in Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Women’s Lives, ed. by Emily Abel and Margaret Nelson (New York: State University of New York Press, 1990), 35-62 (p. 35).

11 House of Commons, The Provision of Public Toilets, p. 116.

12 BBC News, ‘Reality Check: Public Toilets Mapped’, BBC News, 2018<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45009337> [accessed 12 September 2020].

13 Greed, Inclusive Urban Design: Public Toilets, p. 55.

14 Clara Greed, ‘Are We There Yet? Women and Transport Revisited’ in Gendered Mobilities, ed. by Tanu Uteng and Tim Cresswell (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), p. 245–255.

15 Jos Boys, Doing Disability Differently: An Alternative Handbook on Architecture, Dis/ability and Designing for Everyday Life, (London: Routledge, 2014), p.27.

8

16 Greed, Inclusive Urban Design: Public Toilets, Routledge, p. 20.

17 Ibid, p. 22.

18 Construction Industry Council and Construction Skills, Building the Future: How Women Can Make a Difference (London: CIC, 2009), p. 4.

19 Institute for Policy Research, Barriers to Women Entering Parliament and Local Government (Bath: University of Bath, 2018) p. 4.

20 Sally Haslanger, “Ontology and Social Construction”, Philosophical Topics, 23 (1995) 95–125.<https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics19952324> [accessed September 19 2020].

21 Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, (London: Granada Publishing, 1971), p. 31.

22 Greed, Join the Queue: Including Women’s Toilet Needs in Public Space, p. 909.

23 Jones and Slater, Around the Toilet: A Research Project Report About What Makes a Safe and Accessible Toilet Space, p. 25.

24 Matthew Smith, ‘Potty Parity: Would it be Fairer to Make Women’s Toilets Bigger?’, YouGov, 2018 <https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/20/potty-parity-would-it-be-fairer-makewomens-toilet> [accessed 08 September 2020].

25 Royal Society for Public Health, Taking the P*ss: The Decline of the Great British Public Toilet, p. 8.

26 House of Commons, The Provision of Public Toilets, p. 129.

9

Chapter 2The Privilege of Disembodiment

2.1 Public and Private Spheres

It is often theorised that modern inequality in toilet provision is rooted in the separation of public and private spheres that occurred during the Victorian period. The woman’s role within this society was to be a good mother and wife, participating in labours of care and maintenance.1 In this time cities were considered masculine spaces of production, business and pleasure that delicate women must be shielded from through the segregation of space along gendered boundaries.2 As the toilets available to women at this time were mostly within private homes, they became confined to these spaces by a ‘bladder leash’ - the restriction of movement and participation in everyday life related to the proximity of toilet facilities.3 This prevented them from remaining in public spaces for long durations. As Steve Robinson states, “...it was considered an abomination and an assault to decency for women to be provided with public toilets.”4 Although public flushing toilets were first popularised in 1851 at the Great Exhibition, which featured separate Ladies and Gentlemen’s ‘retiring rooms’, it was assumed that women would be too ashamed to be seen entering a toilet in public.5

However, as more women began to take full part in city life, and particularly following the First World War when women began to work in ammunition and textile factories, their presence began to challenge the existing power hierarchy. Activists at this time began to campaign for women’s rights, including the implementation of female toilets in public space. Selfridges famously introduced the first female toilet within a shop into its London based department store in 1909, allowing members of the Suffragette movement to campaign on the streets outside for longer by providing a respectable environment for them to relieve themselves.6

Much like the modern debate around transgender access to toilets, the binary notion of men and women being divided between public and private spheres represents a homogenised view of womanhood in this time. Whilst the dichotomy of public and private is useful in understanding the production of space with regards to middle class white women, it does not reflect the experiences of all women or address the inequalities experienced by other marginalised social groups with regards to sanitation. As Hazel Carby has identified in her article ‘White Women Listen!’ for black women in Victorian Britain at this time notions of domesticity and care were associated not with their own families but with the care of white families.7 Therefore, their experiences of the public and private divide may have been very different from that of the white, middle class women whose accounts are most frequently referenced when looking at the spatial theory of this time period. As Audre Lorde has warned,

I ask that you be aware of how this serves the destructive forces of racism and separation between women - the assumption that the herstory and myth of white women is the legitimate and sole herstory and myth of all women to call for power and background, and that nonwhite women and our herstories are noteworthy only as decorations, or examples of female victimization.8

10

Whilst the more widespread introduction of public toilets for women following the First World War reflected a changing social status for women, long after these spaces began to appear in the public realm they continued to exclude women with disabilities and segregate women by class and race. In an attempt to ensure there would be no mixing between the classes, separate toilets were provided for ‘Ladies’ and ‘Working Women’, with the latter being provided with ‘urinettes’ which were smaller and featured a curtain rather than a door for privacy.9 Similarly, a survey taken in 1961 found that 60% of public toilets in the UK were underground creating access problems for those with a pushchair or a disability.10

When critically examining history in this way it is important to acknowledge that due to wider societal inequalities at this time, many of the first hand accounts and subsequent research papers have been written from the perspective of mostly women who are white, middle class and able bodied. Thus, our understanding of these times is filtered through the lens of those women whose accounts were deemed worthy of being recorded.

2.2 Clean and Dirty People

The failure of government bodies and designers to take seriously women’s concerns about toilet access exemplifies what Judith Plaskow refers to as the privilege of maintaining disembodiment.11 This is the privilege afforded to those who are able to distance themselves publicly from their biological processes. Cross cultural studies have shown that disgust around the subject of elimination appears to be a universal human response, William Ian Miller states that, “The basis for all disgust is us—that we live and die and that the process is a messy one emitting substances and odors that make us doubt ourselves and fear our neighbors.”12 This statement suggests that much of our discomfort originates from an awareness that we are not in complete control of the bodies which we inhabit. As Plaskow notes, even the greatest scholars cannot think their way out of the need to excrete.13 Perhaps in the brief moments of vulnerability experienced during a visit to the toilet humans are reminded all too strongly that the conscious mind is housed within a temporary and changing body.

However, within western society the notion of disgust has been cultivated to extend beyond merely a visceral reaction to human waste and its potential to spread diseases. Instead this rejection of the human body has been projected beyond the self, infiltrating into the existing social hierarchies of society to become inseparable from notions of social inferiority. This blending of marginalised social groups and physical dirt was epitomised by Edward Bulwer-Lytton in his 1830 novel Paul Clifford, in which he refers to the working class as ‘the Great Unwashed’, suggesting that those who were not part of the dominant class were not merely socially inferior but shared the common physical attribute of being dirty, unclean and worthy of disgust in and of themselves.14 It is no surprise then that as public toilets for women became more common the female body was increasingly associated with its bodily functions, considered to be leaky and less controlled than its male counterpart.15 According to Douglas, theories of dirt are related to notions of hierarchical order, in which dirt can only be understood in relation to systems of classification.16 This theory aligns with Ruth Barcan’s assertion that “those who represent a threat to the established gender/sexual (and sometimes racial) order may themselves come to be imagined as a form of cultural waste.”17

11

In fact this notion of female body processes as unclean lingers in modern western society today, exemplified by the social taboo of discussing menstruation around men. In a 2016 YouGov poll of 538 women 73% reported they would not tell their employer if they were experiencing menstrual cramps despite it affecting their ability to work.18 The lingering effects of the Victorian weaponisation of dirt were perfectly illustrated during the 2016 presidential elections campaign in the USA. The current President of the United States, Donald Trump, commented on his female opponent Hillary “I know where she went...it’s disgusting, I don’t want to talk about it”, referring to her use of the toilets during a break in the debate.19 This disgust with which women’s toilet needs are treated has prevented meaningful discussion and helped to maintain policies of gender segregation in public toilets.

This discomfort is replicated not only in spatial policy, but also in physical space. Toilets are often hidden away in dark alleys, down steep steps and in lesser used back rooms, as though apologetic of their very existence. Similarly, the many euphemisms within our language - bathroom, washroom, WC – are another testament to this societal unease.20 Sheila Cavanagh refers to this taboo around bathroom design as ‘generative quiet’.21 This generative silence contributes to the reluctance of policymakers and professionals to seriously address the existing inequalities in public toilet provision. Judith Plaskow asserts that elimination is an act of embodiment and that embracing this is crucial to ensuring that everyone has the right to participate in public life.22 Suggesting that, in order to meaningfully progress issues of toilet equity, the process must start with a reclaiming of the human body and a radical acceptance of our inhabitance within it.

12

1 Margaret Stacey, ‘The division of labour revisited or overcoming the two Adams’, Practice and Progress, 11 (2018), 172-190 (p. 173).

2 Maureen Flanagan, ‘Private needs, public space: public toilets provision in the Anglo-Atlantic patriarchal city: London, Dublin, Toronto and Chicago’, Urban History, 41 (2014), 265–290, (p. 271-73).

3 Rob Kitchen and Robin Law, ‘The Socio-Spatial Construction of (In)accessible Public Toilets’, Urban Studies, 38 (2001), 287–298 (p. 289).

4 Steve Robinson, Public Conveniences: Policy, Planning and Provision (London: Institute of Wastes Management, 2001), p. 85.

5 Alwyn Collinson, ‘Women’s Rights to Sit Comfortably’, Museum of London, 2017 <https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/womens-right-work-toilet-bathroom-victorian-lon-don-wwi-factoryprotest> [accessed 03 September 2020].

6 Ibid.

7 Hazel Carby, ‘White Women Listen! Black Feminism and the Boundaries of Sisterhood in The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s Britain, ed. by Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (London: Hutchinson, 1982), 110-128 (p. 113-15).

8 Audre Lorde, ‘An Open Letter to Mary Daly’, in This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, 4th edition, ed. by Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua (Albany: State University of New York, 2015), 94-97 (p.96).

9 Barbara Penner, ‘A World of Unmentionable Suffering’, Journal of Design History, 14 (2001), 34-51 (p. 42).

10 Graham Don, Public Conveniences in the London Area: A Survey and Some Recommendations (London: The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 1961) p. 23.

11 Plaskow, Embodiment, Elimination, And The Role Of Toilets In Struggles For Social Justice, p. 60.

12 William Miller, The Anatomy of Disgust, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. XIV.

13 Plaskow, Embodiment, Elimination, And The Role Of Toilets In Struggles For Social Justice, p. 61.

14 Edward Bulwer-Lytton, Paul Clifford, (London: Colburn and Bentley, 1830), p. 14.

15 Terry Kogan, Sex-Separation in Public Restrooms: Law, Architecture, and Gender, 14 (2007), p. 24.

16 Douglas, Purity and Danger, p. 24.

13

17 Ruth Barcan, ‘Dirty Spaces: Communication and Contamination in Men’s Public Toilets’, Journal of International Women’s Studies, 6 (2005), 7-23 (p. 10).

18 Matthew Smith, ‘Period Pains Make it Harder for Most Women to Work’, YouGov, 2017<https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/07/31/most-women-workers-have-found-itharder-work-due-p> [accessed 25 September 2020].

19 America Now, Trump Says “I Know Where She Went it’s Disgusting” About Clinton, online video recording, YouTube, 23 December 2015, <https://youtu.be/hSJTR8djeK8> [accessed 15 September 2020].

20 Judith Plaskow, Taking a Break, Toilets, Gender and Disgust, p. 751.

21 Sheila Cavanagh, Queering Bathrooms: Gender, Sexuality, and the Hygienic Imagination, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), p. 29.

22 Plaskow, Embodiment, Elimination, And The Role Of Toilets In Struggles For Social Justice, p. 56.

14

Chapter 3Conflicts and Alliances

3.1 The Fight for Space

Much academic research into toilet provision, particularly with regards to provision for women, fails to take on the experiences or needs of transgender people at all and is founded on the protection of rights based on biological sex rather than gender identity. This speaks of the recurring desire of humans throughout history to homogenise the experience of womanhood, excluding any female who does not meet the changing standards of femininity. In her work ‘Purity and Danger’ Douglas refers to ‘dirt’ as anything which defies established systems of categorisation.1 This theory of dirt asserts that anything that challenges the human desire for order becomes an offence upon human modesty and a threat to social stability. As Douglas states, “people or objects that cross boundaries or that threaten the purity of categories can function like cultural pollutants to be expelled or purified…”2 This attitude towards people who exist beyond the boundaries of traditional classification systems can be seen in modern gender critical feminist’s arguements that transgender bodies do not meet the requirements to be included as women and in women’s space.

Whilst there are many feminist theorists and activists who support transgender rights, social conservatives have amplified trans-exclusionary voices and appropriated feminist narratives, using a politics of fear to justify the exclusion of transgender people from public toilets. However, the real conflict exists between those who argue for equitable public space and those who wish to continue the practice of managing and dividing marginalized bodies. Susan Stryker recognised this in her call for architects to utilise the resources available to them to create secure and intimate spaces that promote “the mixing of non-conforming bodies in public space.”3

Placing a distinction between sex and gender allows not only for a discourse of the differences experienced between men and women that extends beyond biological boundaries, but also for a wider understanding of who may be included within these social groups.4 The Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows people living in the UK to legally change their gender if they do not identify with their biological sex, though this process is lengthy and required a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Feminist scholar Greed has argued that transgender and non-binary people represent a “teeny weeny...percentage of the population”.5 Whilst Stonewall states that best estimates suggests roughly 1% of the populatiron identifies as transgender including those who identify as non-binary.6 However the true numbers are likely hidden, given the high levels of abuse and inequality that trans people face, with 1 in 8 trans people reporting being physically assaulted in their place of work.7 Whilst a 2018 study by Stonewall found that 48% of transgender people were not comfortable using public toilets for fear of harassment or abuse.8

15

Despite the efforts to exclude transgender women from womanhood and present them as a danger to cisgendered women there remain strong parallels between the sexism that cisgendered women face and the cissexism that transgender women face within a patriarchal society.9 In both instances bodies are objectified and constrained, particularly within the USA there remains an almost paternal attitude towards women and transgender people which asserts that neither can be considered competent to make informed choiced about their bodies.10 Simillarly, with respects to the built environment the adverse experiences of transgender users are often not understood and taken seriously by cisgendered people, just as the experiences of women are not taken seriously within patriarchal society.

3.2 The Around the Toilet Project

The purpose of the Around the Toilet project was to facilitate a dialogue between the groups most affected by inadequate toilet provision, exploring the intersectional nature of the barriers these groups faced to toilet access. This was achieved through a series of workshops which focused on the voices of users who are typically underrepresented within the design process.11 The ATT project was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council Connected Communities programme and given approval by Sheffield Hallam University, therefore it can be seen as an ethically produced and relatively unbiased source. The findings of the project have been summarised below, separated into categories which address some of the more common concerns raised against the implementation of GNTs.

3.3 Safety

A study conducted in Massachusetts used criminal incident reports to determine whether GNTs and changing facilities posed an increased threat to women. The results showed that incidents of privacy violation and safety concerns were “exceedingly rare” and led the researchers to conclude that “fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded.”12 Conversely, there is significant evidence that the current segregation poses a danger to transgender users.13 Equally, the risk to all user groups can be reduced by allowing various user groups to share space, therefore providing more constant use and passive surveillance.14 The findings from the ATT project supported these conclusions, with the majority of cisgendered women surveyed having no safety concerns about using a gender neutral toilet.15

3.4 Religion

Toilet scholars that oppose the introduction of gender neutral toilets have previously suggested that GNTs would prevent women from specific religious or cultural backgrounds from entering, as these women are forbidden from sharing toilets with male strangers.16 Standpoint theory states that authority is based on perspective, the categorization of bodies into a social group does not allow one to definitively state the viewpoint of all members of that group, despite their perceived similarities.17 Whilst it is possible that GNTs could create a barrier for access to women of specific faiths or cultural identities there is not enough research that explores this from first hand perspectives. Furthermore, this notion is often based on assumptions about faiths and ignores the experience of trans people of faith. Discussions from the ATT project suggest that the main concern for religious users with regards to public toilets was a lack of facilities provided for ablution.18

16

3.5 Confusion

Another common argument against the introduction of GNTs suggests that they may lead to confusion and anxiety amongst people who live with learning difficulties or those with dementia.19 The findings from the study conducted by the Around the Toilet project strongly reject this notion, concluding that it ignores the diversity of experiences of these users and can be seen as being based in an ableist attitude.20

3.6 Provision

Given that women already have less provision available to them, it is important to ensure that any changes to toilet facilities do not further disadvantage female users. When implemented without proper consultation, GNTs can lead to longer queue times and less provision for women. As Greed has pointed out, when existing gender segregated toilets are relabelled so that male toilets change to ‘with Urinals’ and female toilets to ‘with Cubicles’ this fails to challenge the existing binary inherent in the facilities and continues to give privilege to male needs.21 For example, when the Barbican Centre in London re-labelled it’s existing toilet facilities in 2017 it received public criticism from female users due to a significant increase in the wait times experienced by women.22 It was found that the majority of users comfortable with using the ‘with urinals’ option continued to be cisgendered men, whilst the ‘with cubicles’ option was used by users from across the gender specturm.23 This effectively increased the provision for men whilst forcing women to share their existing provision with additional users. Re-labelling can be seen as a neutral design approach, whilst removing the gender labels should in theory create space in which users are treated equally, in hierarchical society neutrality instead implicitly prioritises the needs of historically privileged groups.

However, a study by Ghent University showed that introducing GNTs had the potential to reduce queue times for women by 63%.24 The research concluded that this reduction in wait time could not be achieved with gender segregated toilets, even when women were provided with two toilets for every one male toilet or urinal, as the sharing of facilities greatly increases efficiency.25 This shows that the way in which gender neutral toilets are implemented has the potential to increase or reduce provision for women and therefore must be carefully considered. The research conducted by the ATT project found that the preferred option for the introduction of GNTs for both cisgender women and transgender people were single unit unisex toilet facillities with full height partitions and doors.26

17

1 Douglas, Purity and Danger, p. 140.

2 Barcan, Dirty Spaces, p. 10.

3 Susan Stryker, ‘Abolishing the Binary’, Stalled!, 2018 <https://www.stalled.online/methodology> [accessed 20 September 2020].

4 Butler, Gender Trouble, p. 09.

5 Clara Greed, A Woman’s Place is to be Heard: A Discussion on the Gender Recognition Act, online video recording, YouTube, 01 November 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD92aLqgtTA> [accessed 10 September 2020].

6 Stonewall, Stonewall, 2019 <https://www.stonewall.org.uk/truth-about-trans> [accessed 03 September 2020].

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 See glossary for a definition of cissexism.

10 Janice Richardson, ‘Feminist Engagement with Social Contract Theory’, in The Routledge Companion to Feminist Philosophy, ed. by Ann Garry and Alison Stone (London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), 82-93 (p. 87).

11 Jones and Slater, Around the Toilet: A Research Project Report About What Makes a Safe and Accessible Toilet Space, p. 12-15.

12 Amira Hasenbush and other, ‘Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms’, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 16 (2019), 70–83<https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z> (p. 71).

13 Stonewall, LGBT in Britain: Trans Report, (London: Stonewall, 2017) p. 10.

14 Joel Sanders, ‘Design Approaches’, Stalled!, 2018 <https://www.stalled.online/methodology> [accessed 20 September 2020].

15 Jones and Slater, Around the Toilet: A Research Project Report About What Makes a Safe and Accessible Toilet Space, p. 8.

16 Greed, Join the Queue: Including Women’s Toilet Needs in Public Space, p. 912.

17 Sandra Harding, The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, (New York and London: Routledge, 2004), p. 5.

18 Jones and Slater, Around the Toilet: A Research Project Report About What Makes a Safe and Accessible Toilet Space, p. 8.

18

19 Clara Greed and Jo-Anne Bichard, ‘Ladies or Gents: Gender Division in Toilets, Gender, Place & Culture, 19 (2012), 545–547, <https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2012.693759> p. 546.

20 Jones and Slater, Around the Toilet: A Research Project Report About What Makes a Safe and Accessible Toilet Space, p. 9.

21 Gail Ramster, Clara Greed and Jo-Anne Bichard, How Inclusion Can Exclude: The Case of Public Toilet Provision for Women, p. 106.

22 Charlotte Jones and Jen Slater, ‘The Toilet Debate: Stalling Trans Possibilities and Defending ‘Women’s Protected Spaces’, The Sociological Review, 68 (2020), 834-851 (p. 846).

23 Greed, Join the Queue: Including Women’s Toilet Needs in Public Space, p. 910.

24 Ghent University, ‘No more queueing at the ladies’ room: How transgender-friendliness may help in battling female-unfriendly toilet culture’ Sciencedaily, 2017 <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170714142749.htm> [accessed 10 September 2020].

25 Ibid.

26 Jones and Slater, Around the Toilet: A Research Project Report About What Makes a Safe and Accessible Toilet Space, p. 33.

19

Chapter 4Preventing Polarisation

4.1 Binary Thinking

The development of categorisation skills is a key part of early cognitive abilities and allows humans to classify information in order to solve problems. However, whilst it is an essential skill, classification has a tendency to develop into binary ways of thinking.1 Binary systems, or binary opposition is a school of thought in which two concepts are strictly defined and related in opposition to one another. Saussurean structuralist theory states that in a binary opposition each term is defined only in relation to its opposite.2 Jacques Derrida suggests humans derive meaning from binary oppositions by allowing the dominant part of the binary pair to govern the other.3 In her work Luce Irigaray applies this understanding to gender, stating that in a patriarchal culture that presumes objectivity, gender becomes a necessary distinction in which the male body can be seen as complete and orderly, whilst the female body is by contrast incomplete and unstable.4 Nasser Maleki refers to this social phenomenon, in which people inherently value one part of the binary opposition over the other, as logocentrism.5 Logocentrism can be seen as the belief that there exists a universal truth from which all actions can be judged, exemplified by the positioning of the dominant groups experience as objective whilst the experiences of the oppressed remain undervalued or discounted.6

The gender binary particularly has created a framework for dividing humans into two distinct categories, those who do not exemplify their category become understood by society as defective.7 Binaries therefore create a distinction between an ideal form and an imperfect copy. Looking at gender binaries through a post-structuralist view it can be argued that the disadvantages faced by both cisgendered women and transgender people can be attributed to a binary mode of thinking which inevitably grants priority to cisgendered men.8 Within a patriarchal society merely meeting the cultural expectations required to be feminine means automatically failing to live up to the intrinsically male normative template. Whilst transgender people, who are often positioned outside of this binary, face an even greater challenge when seeking cultural acceptance. Irigaray supports this notion, suggesting that space can never be truly equal within a binary system of identification, as this equates equality to ‘sameness’ in an environment which defines citizens by sexed bodies that are inherently different.9

Once gender is instead understood as an embodied experience, one which varies dramatically with regards to culture, race, age and ability, then a binary system of genders becomes too simplistic to evaluate the real spatial needs of the diverse bodies within each gender category. Especially when within this binary women are viewed only in relation to their difference from men. The segregation of public space does little to address specific user needs and can instead be viewed as a technology of disciplinary power which produces what Foucault terms ‘docile bodies’ - bodies under constant regulation that become normalised to systems of surveillance.10

20

However, it is important to acknowledge that binary thinking contributes not only to the oppression of women and transgender people, but also reinforces damaging gender stereotypes for men. This is exemplified in the debate around safety within public toilets, where the predominant narrative paints men as perpetrators of violence merely waiting for the opportunity to assault women. In this instance the binary becomes one of perpetrator and victim, reinforcing the gendered notions that men are violent and women are vulnerable.11 This perspective ignores the reality that men can be victims of assault and sexual violence, perpetrated by women or other men.12 Additionally, within discussions around public toilet safety, transgender women are often stereotyped as ‘men in disguise’ seeking to assault women.13 This position is intentionally ignorant of transgender women’s gender identities and reinforces the position that binary systems are upheld by a fear of matter out of place. As Douglas has stated, “dirt is a by-product of a systematic ordering and classification of matter”.14 Therefore, society’s view of dirt becomes informed by that which exists inside and outside of established cultural boundaries.

4.2 Dichotomy in Design

Gender segregated spaces reinforce binary modes of existence in which gender is continually policed. This has a significant impact on those who identify as transgender and genderqueer.15 This issue also affects many cisgendered people as well, whose appearance may not align with traditional gender stereotypes and therefore face challenges on their right to use the toilets associated with their gender. As well as this, by reducing the human spectrum of difference into two distinct categories, male and female, policy makers, clients and architects neglect the complex and varying needs of the people within each category. As Joel Sanders highlights “through the erection of partitions that divide space, architecture colludes in creating and upholding prevailing social hierarchies and distinctions.” 16 Architectural practice often focuses on the assumed needs of specific groups without consideration for the intersecting issues of the diverse users within these wider categories. Instead, architects and designers must recognise the intersectional nature of oppression if they are to play their part in reducing inequality within the built environment.

The suppression of individual body needs and identities through binary logic is party reinforced and produced by the standardisation of bathroom design. Processes of mass production and standardisation have removed control over bathroom design from architects.17 Bucklminster Fuller, when discussing toilet design in 1965, noted that “architects never look at the sanitary fittings themselves or work beyond the boundaries of walls to engage with plumbing.”18 A combination of strict regulation, input from several professional fields all trying to achieve their own version of efficiency, a lack of innovation or diversity in fixtures and a general acceptance within western society of what a public toilet ‘should’ look like have combined into a method of spatial production which fails to account for the experiences and diversity of real bodies.19 This is perhaps why Barbara Penner argues that “any redesign of the toilet will require a redesign of our own expectations and habits.”20 Alternatively, a more interdisciplinary method of working has the potential to lead to a more intersectional architecture. This is evidenced by the toilet layouts produced by the ‘Stalled!’ project, created by a cross-disciplinary team which included architects, a transgender historian, project managers and product designers.21 ‘Stalled!’ focuses on designing multi-user spaces that remove the boundaries between public and private space, allowing for a return to communal rituals of grooming.22

21

Critically examining the binary logic inherent within society and challenging it through design provides architects and built environment professionals with an opportunity to acknowledge gender diversity and celebrate a greater level of human diversity. Challenging binary systems of categorisation and removing gender segregated spaces from the public realm may help to create wider change and promote more inclusive and egalitarian views within society.

For example, researchers in Sweden used survey experiments to analyse the impact using gender-neutral pronouns had on participants’ perceptions of transgender people. The results of this study confirmed that individual use of gender-neutral pronouns correlated with participants displaying more favourable attitudes towards women and transgender people, as well as less male bias.23 The researchers also concluded that attempts to deviate from the gender binary typically produce hostile reactions on a societal level, however these deviations become normalised very quickly.24 The results of this study support the notion that binary attitudes encourage hierarchical thinking, as well as suggesting that small changes, such as the introduction of gender-neutral toilets, could have a wider societal impact. The debate around gender neutral toilets has created much needed discussion about public toilets between policy makers. This provides an opportunity for architects to respond to transgender needs in a way that allows all users to interact with one another in public space in way that discourages the ‘othering’ of bodies which do not fit the normative template.

22

1 Jack Wood and Gianpiero Petriglieri, ‘Transcending Polarization: Beyond Binary Thinking’, Transactional Analysis Journal, 35 (2005), 31-39 (p. 31).

2 Susan Robbins, ‘The Red Pill or the Blue Pill: Transcending Binary Thinking’, Journal of Social Work Education, 51 (2015), 1-4 (p. 1).

3 Jacques Derrida, Positions, (London: The Athlone Press, 1992), p. 41.

4 Luce Irigaray, Speculum of the Other Woman, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1974), p. 263.

5 Nasser Maleki, ‘Contextualising Kathleen Raine’s Selected Poems in the Light of Derridean Model of Deconstruction’, Journal of Language and Literature, 5 (2014), 67-72 (p. 67).

6 Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, (London: Routledge, 1978), p. 278.

7 Butler, Gender Trouble, p. 9.

8 Jack Halberstam, Trans : A Quick and Quirky Account of Gender Variability, (California: University of California Press, 2008), p. 121.

9 Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which is Not One (New York: Cornell University Press, 1985), p. 28-32.

10 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), p. 136.

11 Jarrod Bock and Melissa Burkley, ‘On the prowl: Examining the impact of men-as-predators and women-as-prey on attitudes that perpetuate sexual violence’, Sex Roles, 80 (2019), 262-276 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0929-1> (p. 264).

12 Office of National Statistics, ‘Crime Survey UK’, ONS, 2017 <https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017> [accessed 28 September 2020].

13 Ruth Pearce and others, ‘The Many-Voiced Monster: Collective Determination and the Emergence of Trans’, The Emergence of Trans: Cultures, Politics and Everyday Lives, (London: Routledge, 2020) 1–12 (p. 3).

14 Douglas, Purity and Danger, p. 35.

15 Refer to glossary for definition of genderqueer.

16 Joel Sanders, Stud: Architectures of Masculinity, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), p. 17.

17 Barbara Penner, ‘Here We Shall Deal with Humble Things’, Places Journal, (2012) <https://doi.org/10.22269/121113>

23

18 Banham Reyner, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, (New York: Praeger, 1960), p. 326.

19 Harvey Molotch, ‘On Not Making History: What NYU did With the Toilet and What it Means for the World’, in Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotch and Laura Noren (New York: NYU Press, 2010), 255-272 (p. 256).

20 Barbara Penner, ‘Queering Bathrooms’, Gender, Place & Culture, 19 (2012) 542-545 (p.544).

21 Stalled!, About, Stalled!, 2015 <https://www.stalled.online/> [accessed 20 September 2020].

22 Ibid.

23 Marie Gustafsson, Emma Back and Anna Lindgyist, ‘Introducing a Gender-neutral Pronoun in a Natural Gender Language: The Influence of Time on Attitudes and Behavior’, Front Psychol, 6 (2015), <https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00893>.

24 Ibid.

24

Conclusion

Public toilets are key to citizens’ ability to exist in public space and feel visible. The current level of toilet provision in the UK is not fit for purpose and this lack of provision disproportionately impacts women. There remains a lack of consideration for the needs of women in public toilets that has prevailed from Victorian notions of modesty and is maintained in part by a binary notion of gender which perceives men as the normative template. Futhermore and perhaps more importantly, the existing system of binary gender segregation is rooted in flawed ideals, which exclude trans and non-binary people from public space and reinforce notions of otherness, as well as reducing provision for ciswomen.

I propose that as a society we have struggled to deconstruct the gender binary for the same reasons that dirt has so frequently been associated with marginalised populations, the human predisposition to binary and hierarchical categorisation systems that so greatly fears matter out of ‘place’. I therefore argue that binary thinking prevents equitable provision of space, reducing the needs of diverse bodies down to two discrete binary categories and failing to engage appropriately with the diverse needs of bodies that occupy a spectrum of difference.

Gender neutral toilets provide one opportunity to fix existing inequalities and provide a more inclusive space for all citizens, however there must be careful consideration on how best to implement gender neutral toilets in a way which does not pit user groups against one another in a contest for space. Finally, dismantling gender constructions in urban spaces will allow architects to embrace the changing nature of human identities shaped by interconnected social attributes such as gender, disability, age, race and class.

25

Glossary

Gender:A social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself

Sex:Refers to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions

Transgender:A person whose gender identity does not corresponds with their birth sex.

Cisgender:A person whose gender identity corresponds with their birth sex.

Gender Neutral Toilet (GNT):A toilet accessible by people who identify anywhere on the gender spectrum

Non - Binary:A person who identifies as neither fully male nor fully female

Potty Parity:The equitable provision of public toilets between men and women

Queer Theory:A field of critical theory which explores the oppressive nature of dominant norms

Hegemony:The domination of a diverse society by a ruling class

Genderqueer:A person who does not subscribe to conventional gender definitions

Binary Thinking:A pair of related concepts that are opposite in meaning

Excretion: The excretion of urine, menstrual blood and feces

26

Bibliography

America Now, Trump Says “I Know Where She Went it’s Disgusting” About Clinton, online video recording, YouTube, 23 December 2015, <https://youtu.be/hSJTR8djeK8> [accessed 15 September 2020]

Barcan, Ruth, ‘Dirty Spaces: Communication and Contamination in Men’s Public Toilets’, Journal of International Women’s Studies, 6 (2005), 7-23

BBC News, ‘Reality Check: Public Toilets Mapped’, BBC News, 2018 <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45009337> [accessed 12 September 2020]

Bender-Baird, Kyla, ‘Peeing Under Surveillance: Bathrooms, Gender Policing, and Hate Violence’, Gender, Place & Culture, 23 (2016), 983-988, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2015.1073699>

Bock, Jarrod and Melissa Burkley, ‘On the Prowl: Examining the Impact of Men-As-Predators and Women-As-Prey on Attitudes That Perpetuate Sexual Violence’, Sex Roles, 80 (2019), 262-276 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0929-1>

Bornstein, Kate, Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us (London: Routledge, 1995)

Boys, Jos, ‘Women and the Designed Environment: Dealing with Difference’, Built Environment, 16 (1990), 249-56

Bulwer-Lytton, Edward, Paul Clifford, (London: Colburn and Bentley, 1830)

Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble, (London: Routledge, 1990)

Carby, Hazel, ‘White Women Listen! Black Feminism and the Boundaries of Sisterhood in The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s Britain, ed. by Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (London: Hutchinson, 1982), 110-128

Carranza, Luis, ‘Le Corbusier and the Problems of Representation’, Journal of Architectural Education, 48 (1994), 70-81Cavanagh, Sheila, Queering Bathrooms: Gender, Sexuality, and the Hygienic Imagination, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010)

Collinson, Alwyn, ‘Women’s Rights to Sit Comfortably’, Museum of London, 2017 <https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/womens-right-work-toilet-bathroom-victorian-london-wwi-factory-protest> [accessed 03 September 2020]

Construction Industry Council and Construction Skills, Building the Future: How Women Can Make a Difference (London: CIC, 2009)

27

Cooper, Annabel and other, ‘Rooms of Their Own: Public Toilets and Gendered Citizens in a New Zealand City 1860-1940’, A Journal of Feminist Geography, 7 (2000), 417-433

Crawford, Lucas, ‘Breaking Ground on a Theory of Transgender Architecture’, Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 8 (2010), 515-539

Derrida, Jacques, Positions, (London: The Athlone Press, 1992)

— Writing and Difference, (London: Routledge, 1978)

Don, Graham, Public Conveniences in the London Area: A Survey and Some Recommendations (London: The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 1961)

Douglas, Mary, Purity and danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, (London: Routledge, 1966)

Fenster, Tovi, ‘Gender and the City: The Different Formations of Belonging’, Journal of Gender Studies, 14 (2005), 217–231

Fisher, Berenice and Joan Tronto, ‘Towards a Feminist Theory of Caring’, in Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Women’s Lives, ed. by Emily Abel and Margaret Nelson (New York: State University of New York Press, 1990), 35-62

Flanagan, Maureen, Constructing the Patriarchal City : Gender and the Built Environments of London, Dublin, Toronto, and Chicago, 1870s into The 1940s, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2018)

— ‘Private Needs, Public Space: Public Toilets Provision in the Anglo-Atlantic Patriarchal City: London, Dublin, Toronto and Chicago’, Urban History, 41 (2014), 265–290

Ghent University, ‘No More Queueing at the Ladies’ Room: How Transgender-Friendliness May Help in Battling Female-Unfriendly Toilet Culture’, Sciencedaily, 2017 <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170714142749.htm> [accessed 10 September 2020]

Greed, Clara, ‘Are We There Yet? Women and Transport Revisited’ in Gendered Mobilities, ed. by Tanu Uteng and Tim Cresswell (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), p. 245–255

— A Woman’s Place is to be Heard: A Discussion on the Gender Recognition Act, online video recording, YouTube, 01 November 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD92aLqgtTA> [accessed 10 September 2020]

— Inclusive Urban Design: Public Toilets, (Amsterdam: Architectural, 2003)

— ‘Join the Queue: Including Women’s Toilet Needs in Public Space’, The Sociological Review Monographs, 67 (2019), 908-926 <https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026119854274>

— Taking Stock: an Overview of Toilet Provision and Standards (paper presented at the World Toilet Conference, Belfast, September 2005)

28

Greed, Clara and Jo-Anne Bichard, ‘Ladies or Gents: Gender Division in Toilets, Gender, Place & Culture, 19 (2012), 545–547, <https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2012.693759>

Gough, Tim, ‘Trans-Architecture’, Queering Spaces, 21 (2017), 51-66

Gustafsson, Marie, Emma Back and Anna Lindgyist, ‘Introducing a Gender-neutral Pronoun in a Natural Gender Language: The Influence of Time on Attitudes and Behavior’, Front Psychol, 6 (2015), <https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00893>

Halberstam, Jack, Trans : A Quick and Quirky Account of Gender Variability, (California: University of California Press, 2008)

Haraway, Donna, ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, Feminist Studies, 14 (1988), 575-599

Harding, Sandra, The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, (New York and London: Routledge, 2004)

Hasenbush, Amira and others, ‘Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms’, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 16 (2019), 70–83 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z>

Hills, Helen, Architecture and the Politics of Gender in Early Modern Europe (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2003)

House of Commons, The Provision of Public Toilets (London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2008)

Institute for Policy Research, Barriers to Women Entering Parliament and Local Government (Bath: University of Bath, 2018)

Irigaray, Luce, Speculum of the Other Woman, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1974)

— This Sex Which is Not One (New York: Cornell University Press, 1985)

Jones, Charlotte and Jen Slater, Around the Toilet: A Research Project Report About What Makes a Safe and Accessible Toilet Space (Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University, 2018)

— ‘The Toilet Debate: Stalling Trans Possibilities and Defending ‘Women’s Protected Spaces’, The Sociological Review, 68 (2020), 834-851

Kitchen, Rob and Robin Law, ‘The Socio-Spatial Construction of (In)accessible Public Toilets’, Urban Studies, 38 (2001), 287–298

Kogan, Terry, Sex-Separation in Public Restrooms: Law, Architecture, and Gender, 14 (2007)

29

Lorde, Audre, ‘An Open Letter to Mary Daly’, in This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, 4th edition, ed. by Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua (Albany: State University of New York, 2015), 94-97

Maleki, Nasser, ‘Contextualising Kathleen Raine’s Selected Poems in the Light of Derridean Model of Deconstruction’, Journal of Language and Literature, 5 (2014), 67-72

Matrix, Making Space: Women and the Man-Made Environment (London: Pluto, 1984)

Miller, William, The Anatomy of Disgust, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997)

Molotch, Harvey, ‘On Not Making History: What NYU did With the Toilet and What it Means for the World’, in Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotch and Laura Noren (New York: NYU Press, 2010), 255-272

Mueller, Elizabeth and others, ‘Gender Differences in 24-hour Urinary Diaries of Asymptomatic North American Adults’, Journal of Urology, 173 (2005), 490–492 <https://doi.org/0.1097/01.ju.0000149947.28100>

Office of National Statistics, ‘Crime Survey UK’, ONS, 2017 <https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017> [accessed 28 September 2020]

Pearce, Ruth and others, ‘The Many-Voiced Monster: Collective Determination and the Emergence of Trans’, The Emergence of Trans: Cultures, Politics and Everyday Lives, (London: Routledge, 2020) 1–12

Penner, Barbara, ‘A World of Unmentionable Suffering’, Journal of Design History, 14 (2001), 34-51

— ‘Here We Shall Deal with Humble Things’, Places Journal, (2012) <https://doi.org/10.22269/121113>

— ‘Queering Bathrooms’, Gender, Place & Culture, 19 (2012) 542-545

Pickering, Lucy and Phillippa Wiseman, ‘Dirty Scholarship and Dirty Lives: Explorations in Bodies and Belonging’, Sociological Review, 67 (2019), 746-765

Plaskow, Judith, ‘Embodiment, Elimination, And The Role Of Toilets In Struggles For Social Justice’, CrossCurrents, 58 (2008), 51-64

-— ‘Taking a Break: Toilets, Gender, and Disgust’, South Atlantic Quarterly, 115 (2016), 748-754 <https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-3656147>

Ramster, Gail, Clara Greed and Jo-Anne Bichard, ‘How Inclusion Can Exclude: The Case of Public Toilet Provision for Women’, Built Environment, 44 (2018), 91-115

Ramster, Gail & Jo-Anne Bichard, Publicly Accessible Toilets: An Inclusive Design Guide (London: Royal College of Arts, 2011)

30

Reyner, Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, (New York: Praeger, 1960)

Richardson, Janice, ‘Feminist Engagement with Social Contract Theory’, in The Routledge Companion to Feminist Philosophy, ed. by Ann Garry and Alison Stone (London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), 82-93

Robbins, Susan, ‘The Red Pill or the Blue Pill: Transcending Binary Thinking’, Journal of Social Work Education, 51 (2015), 1-4

Robinson, Steve, Public Conveniences: Policy, Planning and Provision (London: Institute of Wastes Management, 2001)

Royal Society for Public Health, Taking the P*ss: The Decline of the Great British Public Toilet (London: Royal Society for Public Health, 2019)

Sanders, Joel, Stud: Architectures of Masculinity, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996)

Sanders, Joel and Susan Stryker, ‘Stalled! Gender-Neutral Public Bathrooms’, South Atlantic Quarterly, 115 (2016), 779-788

Smith, Matthew, ‘Potty Parity: Would it be Fairer to Make Women’s Toilets Bigger?’, YouGov, 2018 <https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/20/potty-parity-would-it-be-fairer-make-womens-toilet> [accessed 08 September 2020]

— ‘Period Pains Make it Harder for Most Women to Work’, YouGov, 2017<https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/07/31/most-women-workers-have-found-it-harder-work-due-p> [accessed 25 September 2020]

Stonewall, LGBT in Britain: Trans Report, (London: Stonewall, 2017)

Stonewall, Stonewall, 2019 <https://www.stonewall.org.uk/truth-about-trans> [accessed 03 September 2020]

Wilson, Elizabeth, The Sphinx in The City, (London: Virago Press, 1991)

Wiseman, Phillippa, ‘Lifting the Lid: Disabled Toilets as Sites of Belonging and Embodied Citizenship’, The Sociological Review, 67 (2019), 788-806

Wood, Jack and Gianpiero Petriglieri, ‘Transcending Polarization: Beyond Binary Thinking’, Transactional Analysis Journal, 35 (2005), 31-39

Yasminah Beebeejaun (2017) Gender, Urban space, and the Right to Everyday Life, Journal of Urban Affairs, 39:3, 323-334, <https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1255526>