Inclusivity is at the heart of much of modern educational practice and for many schools and students, the public toilets are a glaring reminder of attitudes and practices of a past era that don’t necessarily serve the realities of today’s existence. Bullying, smoking, vandalism and criminal activity have often flourished in these spaces, making them unusable for vulnerable students. Many schools and organisations are redesigning their washroom spaces to enable all students to have access to the toilet – a basic human right that is often denied due to the realities of life for many youths.
The debate over inclusive toilets is intense and fraught. In the United States, the various state bills that allow or deny transgender individuals access to their choice of gendered public restroom have created major controversy about what constitutes human rights and gender identity. Feelings about whether it is necessary or useful to separate toilet facilities along a binary gender divide are strong and are polarising communities and politicising the issue of toilet space in the public sphere.
Why is this issue so important for schools to deal with and what do school leaders need to do to create effective spaces that accommodate everyone?
Building codes and legislation are often the main drivers of change and many organisations will respond reactively to changes in legal requirements, however, ethically, this may be a very irresponsible approach.
Dangers and Fears
Bullying is a major problem in schools. A 2016 report by Ditch the Label, an anti-bullying charity, shows that 50 per cent of UK students have been bullied at some point and that 11 per cent are bullied on a daily basis. In another study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 16 per cent of secondary-level boys reported bad things happening in the school toilets.
In addition to being a haven for bullying, traditional toilet facilities are becoming more and more problematic as awareness of the non-binary nature of gender is increasing. According to the Cunningham Group report, population studies estimate that between 0.5% and 2% of the population have strong feelings of being transgender, and that at least 0.5% of the population has taken some steps toward transitioning their gender. In one of the most comprehensive surveys of the United States’ transgender population, a notably high rate of discrimination was reported in a variety of settings and forms. 78% of transgender people reported being harassed at school by students, teachers or staff, while 35% reported being physically assaulted and 41% reported attempting suicide at some point in their life.
The discrimination faced by the transgender community is significant and in the face of this research, it becomes apparent that the common multi-occupant, gender-segregated public washroom facilities do not enhance or facilitate human dignity, health or safety for a vulnerable segment of the population. It is crucial that schools take these issues seriously and work to create safe, usable washroom facilities for all students.
Past Precedence
Arguments against all-inclusive washrooms are often based on resistance to change and a belief that separate toilets for males and females are somehow ‘natural’ and based on anatomy. However, like with most of human history, the development of public washroom space reflects the cultural beliefs and priorities of the society that created them, in this case the Victorians.
Public washrooms were first used in the UK in 1851 at the London Crystal Palace and were not commonplace until years later. Women were especially restricted by the lack of public facilities, especially due to the restrictive ‘Separate Spheres’ ideology that restricted those of the ‘weaker’ sex to the domestic sphere. Women needed protection and, as urbanisation increased, architects and planners began to create cordoned off public spaces for women that ensured they were protected in their separate sphere.
As factories proliferated, toilet facilities became more necessary and the Victorian values of privacy and modesty for women required that separate toilet facilities and dressing rooms be available. The laws that developed around sex-separated toilets were not based on a gender-neutral idea relating to anatomical differences, but rather were developed to reinforce the 19th century ideology that dictated women’s restricted place in society. As a society, we have disproven and moved beyond the separate spheres practice and so it makes sense that we should move forward with the public spaces we create.
Possibilities
Several options have been proposed to overcome the issue of gendered washrooms, including creating a small number of gender neutral, single-occupant toilets in addition to the more traditional facilities. This is still problematic from the perspective of safety and inclusion, as it requires a transgendered person to select a category of ‘other’, which can create further alienation and separation.
The preferred situation, which is becoming more common in restaurants and bars, is multiple-occupant, gender-neutral facilities with lockable single occupant stalls.
A new report from Cunningham Group Architecture Inc. outlines what aspects of design are important in washrooms for the K-12 sector and provides quantitative data on which aspects are most effective and important in making students feel safe. According to Cunningham Group, there are several key design components that separate all-inclusive restrooms from their gender-segregated counterparts.
All-inclusive restrooms simply look and feel different than their gendered counterparts. Key design differences include:
- Location, Visibility, and Openness
- Full-Height Walls, Doors, and Hardware
- Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
- Cost
Perhaps the most obvious difference between all-inclusive and gender-segregated restrooms is visibility and openness.
The location of all-inclusive restrooms within the school should be purposeful and located on as many circulation paths as possible to allow for passive security. The rationale is that bullying or discouraging behaviour will less likely occur, as many eyes will monitor activity. Additionally, since the restrooms are open to the hallway, security cameras can be located for additional monitoring.
Another important consideration for effective space is to locate as much visibility through the restrooms, including visibility above the sink area. In order to provide some sense of privacy while maintaining visibility, full-height glazing can be placed to one side of the restroom as it faces the corridor. This also provides a safe area for doors to open and close without risk of hitting passers-by in the adjacent hallway. To increase safety, false columns with mirrors on two sides increase visibility and prevent pedestrian accidents around the open corners.
Because the all-inclusive restrooms are designed to be open and visible to passers-by, it is important to maintain a sense of privacy at the toilet compartment itself. With this model, full-height acoustic walls separate each compartment, and full-height doors separate the compartment from the common handwashing area.
For additional privacy and to prevent issues such as mobile phones being slid into the stall, it’s a good idea to reduce the undercut of the doors to 1/4” open area under the door, as opposed to typical doors that allow for 3/4” of undercut. Hardware is also another important consideration for unisex washrooms. One option is to have the door closer set to keep the door open 10 degrees when not in use and have an occupancy indicator on both sides of the door. Together, these two items make it easy for students and staff alike to know whether a compartment is occupied and secured or open and available for use.
This all-inclusive washroom model was implemented at Humboldt High School in the US and a survey of 794 students was conducted to learn how they feel about the all-inclusive model in terms of feeling safe.
While most of the responses were neutral in relation to most of the key design components, there is a clear preference for the all-inclusive model. For those students who experienced both the gender segregated and all-inclusive model, 43% were in favour of the all-inclusive model, while an additional 40% didn’t mind either way.
One clear design component that contributed to the students’ feelings of safety and security is knowing the doors are locked from the inside of the stall: 59% of both males and females felt that this component was most critical to their feelings of safety and security.
In addition to the ability to see that the doors are locked from the inside of the stall, the top three design components that should be considered in the design of all-inclusive restrooms, as validated by these survey results are:
- Being able to see if the doors are locked from the inside
- Full-height walls
- Openness to the hallway
The additional comments offered on the survey expressed their need for privacy during the day and the design of these restrooms fulfils that need. Students also mentioned that this restroom model alleviated previous behaviour such as fighting, or fear of photos taken of them under the open stalls of the gender-segregated restrooms.
There are several key design components that separate all-inclusive restrooms from gender-segregated restrooms, including their location within school facilities, visibility, openness to the hallway, full-height walls and doors, as well as mechanical, electrical, and plumbing differences. The one downside is that all of these translate into a cost-premium for this model. According to the Cunningham Group report, the assessed cost for this translates to approximately US$12,500 more per compartment than typical restrooms.
However, Cunningham Group argue that the flexibility that this model affords in terms of location and square footage savings, not to mention the reduced stress afforded by individuals on the gender spectrum and the reduction in opportunities for bullying or anti-social behaviour, more than make up for the increased cost.
Rethinking Washrooms for everyone
Some schools that have implemented gender-neutral facilities have experienced a strong backlash from parents, with many of them citing objections based on concerns of a lack of privacy, especially for girls, and concerns that it will promote sexual behaviour or contribute to gender confusion in adolescents. The research does not support these views, but rather supports the opposite perspectives – the fully enclosed stalls increase privacy, the improved visibility and openness reduces opportunities for unwanted behaviour, and the removal of gender-segregations mean that students are not continually faced with the question of their gender identity every time they need to use the toilet.
Although some critics have suggested that the current focus on gender fluidity is simply a passing fad and that it’s not worth investing money in, the advantages of inclusive washrooms are real. These kinds of spaces resolve multiple problems relating to the health and well being of young people and they create a better environment for everyone.
Jory Debenham