Call for evidence outcome

Toilet provision for men and women: call for evidence - analysis of responses received

Updated 13 August 2023

Introduction

This report provides a summary of the analysis of responses received to the Toilet provision for men and women: call for evidence. The call for evidence ran from 31 October 2020 to 26 February 2021.

The call for evidence set out issues but did not ask any questions and requested that technical comments were submitted by email to a specified email address. All the responses have been analysed using standardised fields to enable the responses to be summarised in this report. The common themes that were raised in the responses have been collated under the following headings:

• Reading of support for type of toilet provision
• Safety concerns for particular groups
• Other issues
• Protected characteristics impacted

In addition, responses that cited design issues/considerations were analysed further to understand these in more detail.

Interpretation of responses and analysis

The call for evidence did not ask questions, which meant respondents were able to comment on any of the issues presented. While this approach provided a great deal of detail on a range of views, it means that a quantitative analysis of the responses can result in potentially misleading interpretations of what respondents intended to say.

This overall analysis presents numbers and percentages of respondents who were judged to support certain toilet types. However, respondents were not asked to support one toilet type over another or indicate whether or not they supported specific toilet types.

For example, the analysis could be read as suggesting that only 2% of respondents were supportive of disabled persons’ toilets. We do not, however, believe that if we had asked specifically if people supported disabled persons’ toilets being provided, only 2% of respondents would have said, ‘Yes’. We consider it more likely to be the case that people simply did not choose to comment on disabled persons’ toilets in their responses on the presumption that disabled persons’ toilets would continue to be provided – as is currently the case.

The same logic applies to all the headline percentages throughout this analysis. It should be noted that respondents choosing to comment on certain issues or toilet types mentioned in the call for evidence does not necessarily indicate a lack of support for those issues or toilet types they did not comment on.

Number and profile of responses

In total 17,589 responses were received in response to the call for evidence. Responses to the call for evidence were almost all from individuals, although there were 105 responses from organisations.

Table 1: Profile of responses to call for evidence

Type of response	Number of responses	%
Individual	17,484	99%
Organisation	105	<1%
Total	17,589	100%

Figure 1: Profile of responses to call for evidence

12,606 responses (72% of all responses received) included reference to reports and research material. Just over two-thirds of all responses to the call for evidence cited reports or research but did not attach or provide links to those sources. Fewer than 3% of responses to the call for evidence included attachments or links to further information. Where attachments or links were provided, there was an even split between the number of responses citing technical or research information (e.g., legislation and regulations, academic journal articles) and those citing non-technical information (e.g., press articles, blogs).

Table 2: Number and types of references included in responses

References in responses	Number of responses	%
Any reports/research cited but not attached/linked?	12,087	69%
Non-research/technical attachments or links provided?	287	2%
Research/technical information attachments or links provided?	232	1%
Total	12,606	72%

Stonewall UK’s LGBT in Britain – Trans Report (2018), was cited in 11,866 responses (67% of all responses). The next most cited report or piece of research, with 115 citations, was a 2013 report by UCLA’s School of Law Williams Institute titled Gendered Restrooms and Minority Stress. 23 responses cited a 2019 report by the Royal Society for Public Health titled Taking the P*** which highlighted the health impacts of limiting public toilet provision.

Headline findings

Support for different types of toilet provision

95% of responses were read to be supportive of at least one of the types of toilet provision listed in Table 3. 83% of responses were read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets; 12% of separate sex toilets; 6% of non-gendered toilet provision in addition to separate sex toilets; and 2% of disabled persons toilets/ Changing Places toilets.

As stated in the introduction, when interpreting these numbers, it should be noted that respondents to the call for evidence were not answering specific questions: they were making their own choices about what issues to comment on. It should also be noted that the call for evidence did not say whether each toilet type might be considered as the only type to be provided or as an additional provision alongside other toilet types.

The example of disabled persons’ toilets is most stark and cannot be interpreted as only 2% of respondents believing disabled persons’ toilets should be provided.

The same logic should be applied to all these numbers, which should be taken in the context of the call for evidence. For each line below, this is the number and percentage of people who, when given free choice of what to comment on, chose to indicate their support for these toilet types.

Table 3: Percentage of responses read to be supportive of different types of toilet provision

Read to be supportive of:	Number of responses	%
Non-gendered toilets	14,549	83%
Separate sex toilets	2,065	12%
Non-gendered toilets in addition to separate sex toilets	979	6%
Disabled person toilets/ Changing Places toilets	365	2%
No preference identified	871	5%

Figure 2: Split of responses by reading of support for different types of toilet provision

Of the remaining 5%, 890 responses were read to be supportive of two types of toilet provision. 109 responses were read to be supportive of three types of toilet provision. 44 responses were read to be supportive of all four types of toilet provision:

• 492 responses read to be supportive of single sex toilets (24% of all those read to be supportive of single sex toilets/3% of all responses), were also read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets in addition to separate sex toilets.
• 165 responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets (1% of all those read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets), were also read to be supportive of disabled person toilets/Changing Places toilets.
• 111 responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets (1% of all those read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets), were also read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets in addition to separate sex toilets.
• 61 responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets (<1% of all those read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets), were also read to be supportive of separate sex toilets.
• 36 responses read to be supportive of disabled person toilets/Changing Places toilets (10% of all those read to be supportive of disabled person toilets/Changing Places toilets), were also read to be supportive of single sex toilets.
• 25 responses read to be supportive of disabled person toilets/Changing Places toilets (7% of all those read to be supportive of disabled person toilets/Changing Places toilets), were also read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets in addition to single sex toilets.

Safety concerns for particular groups

86% of responses cited safety concerns for particular groups of people using toilets.

79% of responses mentioned safety concerns for trans/non-binary people and 75% mentioned safety concerns for women. Fewer than 5% of responses mentioned safety concerns for one of the following groups: girls, children, men, disabled people, and boys.

Of the 13,184 responses which mentioned safety concerns for women, 11,646 responses (88% of all responses mentioning safety concerns for women) also mentioned safety concerns for women from particular groups.

Table 4: Safety concerns for different groups

Safety concerns cited in response	Number of responses	% of all responses
Safety concerns for trans/non-binary people	13,811	79%
Safety concerns for women	13,184	75%
Safety concerns for girls	504	3%
Safety concerns for children	304	2%
Safety concerns for men	97	1%
Safety concerns for disabled people	69	<1%
Safety concerns for boys	14	<1%
No safety concerns cited	2,472	14%

Figure 3: Safety concerns for different groups

86% of responses which cited safety concerns for trans/non-binary people also cited Stonewall’s LGBT in Britain - Trans Report (2018), referencing that 48% of trans people feel uncomfortable using public toilets, because of verbal abuse, intimidation, and physical assault.

Impact of toilet provision upon other issues

15,479 responses (88% of all responses) mentioned, or were relevant to, one or more ‘other issue’.

Six other issues were mentioned in, or relevant to, more than two-thirds of responses.

These were:

• Menstruation (12,922 responses, 74% of all responses mentioned this issue).
• Points about the design of toilet facilities/accommodation (including urinals) (12,799 responses, 73% of all responses).
• Family use/children (12,712 responses, 72% of all responses).
• Comments regarding disabled persons toilet provision (12,407 responses, 71% of all responses).
• Reference to the Equality Act 2010 (12,208 responses, 69% of all responses).
• Mention of medical conditions (12,081 responses, 69% of all responses).

Table 5: Other issues mentioned in or relevant to the response

Other issues mentioned in or relevant to response	Number of responses	% of all responses
Menstruation	12,922	74%
Design of toilet facilities/accommodation (including urinals)	12,799	73%
Family use/children	12,712	72%
Disabled persons toilets	12,407	71%
Equality Act 2010	12,208	69%
Medical conditions	12,081	69%
Sex vs gender debate	833	5%
Queueing to use toilets	782	4%
Public toilet availability	743	4%
Predatory behaviour/spying	692	4%
Management/cleanliness issues	555	3%
Signage	439	3%
Religion/faith issues	202	1%
Intention to improve toilets = good	180	1%
Building regulations	162	1%
No other issues cited	2,110	12%

Figure 4: Other issues mentioned in or relevant to the response

The most frequently mentioned medical conditions were:

• Incontinence - 11,700 responses mentioned this medical condition, 97% of all responses which mentioned a medical condition.
• Bladder issues - 41 responses, <1% of all responses which mentioned a medical condition.
• Bowel condition/irritable bowel syndrome - 34 responses, <1% of all responses which mentioned a medical condition.
• Miscarriage - 34 mentions, <1% of all responses which mentioned a medical condition.
• Prostate issues - 10 responses, <1% of all responses which mentioned a medical condition.

Toilet design suggestions

1,548 responses (9% of call for evidence responses) provided comments on toilet design.

75% of toilet design references were made in responses that were read to be supportive of gender-neutral toilets.

958 of these comments (62% of all design comments made in responses) referred to the design of cubicles – in particular, references about gender neutral toilets being of single cubicle design (i.e., with no communal area/corridor outside of cubicles) and raised the point that cubicles should have no gaps above or below the doors. The next most common comment regarding cubicle design was the need for bigger cubicles.

229 responses (15% of all design comments) mentioned the issue of cubicles having no gap under/over the door. Of these, 29 responses referenced having no gap under/over cubicle doors as a way of reducing the risk of predatory behaviour/spying in toilets.

Of the 167 responses which included content relating to making cubicles bigger, 25 responses mentioned the need to accommodate prams, buggies, or pushchairs.

Other design suggestions mentioned in responses were the need for sanitary bins in all toilets (11% of all toilet design suggestions made), making gender neutral toilets a third option alongside male and female toilets (11% of all toilet design suggestions made), and the replacement of urinals with cubicles (8% of all toilet design suggestions made).

13 responses (1% of all toilet design suggestions made) suggested that urinals should be in a separate room or area.

Table 6: Toilet design suggestions

Toilet design suggestion	Number of responses	As % of all design suggestions
Cubicles - gender neutral should be single cubicle	237	15%
Cubicles - no gap under/over door	229	15%
Sanitary bins in all toilets	168	11%
Cubicles - make cubicle bigger / accessible to pushchairs	167	11%
Toilet provision - make gender neutral third option	167	11%
Cubicles - replace urinals with cubicles	127	8%
Other Design issues	127	8%
Cubicles - include sinks/dryers	99	6%
Cubicles - self-contained - open onto public area	99	6%
Toilet provision - make more men’s toilets gender neutral and retain women only facilities	31	2%
Other - make gender neutral with urinals	11	1%
Toilet provision - make disabled persons toilet gender neutral	7	1%

Relevance of responses to Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics

Most responses (94.5%) raised issues that potentially have an impact (positive or negative) on at least one protected characteristic as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

Gender Reassignment (88% of responses) and Sex (85%) were the two protected characteristics most often raised in responses. The protected characteristics of Age, Disability, and Race also were identified as being potentially impacted on by more than two-thirds of responses.

The remaining protected characteristics – Pregnancy and Maternity, Religion or Belief, Sexual Orientation, and Marriage and Civil Partnership – were referenced in relatively few responses.

Table 7: Number of responses potentially impacting upon an Equality Act 2010 Protected Characteristic

Potential impacts on Protected Characteristics	Number of responses	As % of all responses
Gender Reassignment	15,452	88%
Sex	14,955	85%
Age	12,793	73%
Disability	12,424	71%
Race	11,947	68%
Pregnancy and Maternity	559	3%
Religion or Belief	234	1%
Sexual Orientation	179	1%
Marriage and Civil Partnership	13	<1%
No protected characteristics cited	973	6%

Figure 5: Percentage of responses potentially impacting upon Equality Act 2010 Protected Characteristics

Analysing responses by reading of support for different types of toilet provision

83% of responses to the call for evidence were read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets. 12% of responses were read to be supportive of single sex toilets, 6% for non-gendered toilets in addition to single sex toilets, and 2% for disabled person toilets/Changing Places toilets.

Further analysis of the data was undertaken to explore the views within these groups of responses in relation to the headline findings on safety concerns, potential impact on protected characteristics, and other issues.

Safety concerns

Safety concerns for trans/non-binary people were mentioned in 79% of responses to the call for evidence.

Safety concerns for women were mentioned in 75% of responses; 88% of the responses which mentioned safety concerns of women, specifically mentioned black women, lesbians, and butch women.

Fewer than 5% of responses mentioned safety concerns for one of the following groups: girls, children, men, disabled people, and boys.

• Of responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets:
  • 92% referenced safety concerns for trans/non-binary people;
  • 82% mentioned safety concerns for women.
• Of responses read to be supportive of separate sex toilets:
  • 54% referenced safety concerns for women;
  • 22% referenced safety concerns for girls;
  • 11% referenced safety concerns for children; and
  • 7% referenced safety concerns for trans/non-binary people.
• Of responses read to be supportive of ‘non-gendered toilets in addition to separate sex toilets’:
  • 47% referenced safety concerns for women;
  • 29% referenced safety concerns for trans/non-binary people;
  • 19% referenced safety concerns for girls; and
  • 9% referenced safety concerns for women.
• Of responses read to be supportive of disabled persons toilets/Changing Places:
  • 44% referenced safety concerns for trans/non-binary people;
  • 26% referenced safety concerns for women;
  • 11% referenced safety concerns for girls; and
  • 9% referenced safety concerns for children.

Figure 6: Safety concerns referenced by reading of support for different types of toilet provision

Impact of toilet provision upon other issues

Other issues commonly referenced in responses were: menstruation; points about the design of toilet facilities/accommodation (including urinals); family use/children, in terms of those with children using toilet facilities; points regarding disabled persons toilet provision; reference to the Equality Act 2010; and mention of medical conditions.

• Over 80% of responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets referenced the same 6 ‘Other issues’. These were menstruation, design of toilets, family use, disabled persons toilets, Equality Act 2010 and medical conditions. All other issues were cited by fewer than 5% of responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets.

• Amongst responses read to be supportive of single sex toilet provision, menstruation (26% of those read to be supportive of single sex toilet provision) was the most referenced ‘Other issue’ affected by toilet provision. A significant proportion of responses read to be support of single sex toilets were also likely to reference issues with predatory behaviour/spying in toilets (24%), and family use (21%).

• Over a quarter of responses read to be supportive of ‘non-gendered toilets in addition to separate sex toilets’ referenced design (28% of those read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets in addition to separate sex toilets), disabled persons toilets (28%) and family use (26%). A significant proportion of responses also mentioned queuing (21%), toilet availability (21%) and the sex vs. gender debate (20%).

• Responses read to be supportive of disabled persons toilets/ Changing Places toilets were the most varied group in terms of the range of ‘Other issues’ cited in the responses. Over three quarters of this group referenced issues relating to disabled persons toilets (78%) in the response. References of family use/children (52%), the design of toilet facilities/accommodation (50%), menstruation (46%), and queuing to use the toilet (41%) were also common. This group was also most likely to reference management/cleanliness issues, signage, and Building Regulations in the response.

Table 8: Other issues referenced by reading of support for different types of toilet provision

Other issues mentioned	All responses	Read to be supportive of separate sex toilets	Read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets	Read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets in addition to separate sex toilets	Read to be supportive of disabled persons toilets/ Changing Places toilets
Menstruation	74%	26%	85%	3%	46%
Design of toilet facilities/ accommodation (including urinals)	73%	15%	85%	28%	50%
Family use/ children	72%	21%	84%	26%	52%
Disabled persons toilets	71%	11%	83%	28%	78%
Equality Act 2010	69%	8%	83%	13%	17%
Medical conditions	69%	12%	81%	15%	17%
Sex vs gender debate	5%	17%	3%	20%	17%
Queueing to use toilet	4%	15%	3%	21%	41%
Public toilet availability	4%	15%	2%	21%	25%
Predatory behaviour/ spying	4%	24%	1%	24%	15%
Management/ cleanliness issues	3%	16%	1%	17%	34%
Signage	3%	4%	2%	8%	29%
Religion/ faith issues	1%	8%	<1%	7%	6%
Intention to improve toilets= good	1%	3%	1%	7%	23%
Building Regulations	1%	2%	1%	5%	22%

Figure 7: Responses mentioning menstruation by reading of support for different types of toilet provision

Figure 8: Responses mentioning Family use/ children by reading of support for different types of toilet provision

Figure 9: Responses mentioning Equality Act 2010 by reading of support for different types of toilet provision

Figure 10: Responses mentioning queueing to use the toilet by reading of support for different types of toilet provision

Figure 11: Responses mentioning public toilet availability by reading of support for different types of toilet provision

Figure 12: Responses mentioning religion/ faith issues by reading of support for different types of toilet provision

Further analysis was undertaken to explore how the mentioning of ‘Other issues’ correlated to the referencing of safety concerns for specific groups. Looking only at responses that referenced safety concerns for trans/non-binary people, and women (the two groups referenced most often in relation to safety concerns) we find:

• 85-89% of responses which mentioned safety concerns for trans/non-binary people also referenced the same six ‘Other issues’ as responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets – i.e., menstruation, design of toilet facilities/ accommodation (including urinals), family use/ children, disabled persons toilets, Equality Act 2010, and medical conditions.

• 90-92% of the responses that mentioned safety concerns for women also mentioned the same six other issues listed above. 4% referenced the ‘Other issue’ of predatory behaviour/spying.

Toilet design suggestions

1,548 responses (9% of call for evidence responses) provided comments on toilet design. 958 of these comments (62% of all design comments made in responses) referred to the design of cubicles – in particular, references about gender neutral toilets being of single cubicle design (i.e., with no communal area/corridor outside of cubicles) and cubicles having no gaps over or under doors.

• Of the responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets which also included design suggestions:
  • 91% included suggestions related to replacing urinals with cubicles.
  • 88% included the suggestion of having sanitary bins in all toilets.
  • 84% included the suggestion of cubicles having no gaps under/ over the door.
  • 83% included the suggestion that gender neutral toilets should be a single cubicle design.
• Of the responses read to be supportive of single sex toilets which also included design suggestions:
  • 67% included a call for more female toilets.
  • 53% included the suggestion that gender neutral toilets should be a ‘third option’.
  • 35% included the suggestion of cubicles being self-contained – opening onto a public area.
• Of the responses read to be supportive of disabled persons toilets/ Changing Places toilets which also included design suggestions:
  • 52% included suggestions related to replacing urinals with cubicles.
  • 25% included the suggestion of cubicles being self-contained – opening onto a public area.
  • 20% included the suggestion that gender neutral toilets should be a ‘third option’.
• Of the responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets in addition to separate sex toilets which also included design suggestions:
  • 73% included the suggestion that gender neutral toilets should be a ‘third option’.
  • 57% included a call for more female toilets.
  • 61% included the suggestion to make more men’s toilets gender neutral and retain women only facilities.
  • 57% included the suggestion to make disabled toilets gender neutral.

Relevance of responses to Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics

Across all responses, potential impacts on the Gender Reassignment and Sex protected characteristic were most often raised. Potential impacts on the Age, Disability, and Race protected characteristics were raised in more than half of responses.

• Potential impacts on the Gender Reassignment protected characteristic were raised by:
  • 96% of responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets.
  • 82% of responses read to be supportive of disabled persons toilets/ Changing Places toilets.
  • 74% of responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets in additional to separate sex toilets.
  • 53% of responses read to be supporting of single sex toilets.
• Potential impacts on the Sex protected characteristic were raised by:
  • 91% of responses read to be supporting of single sex toilets.
  • 88% of responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets.
  • 82% of responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilets in additional to separate sex toilets.
  • 78% of responses read to be supportive of disabled persons toilets/ Changing Places toilets.

• Potential impacts on the Age, Disability, and Race protected characteristics were most likely to be included in responses read to be supportive of non-gendered toilet provision: 83% of responses supportive of non-gendered toilets included content relevant to Age and 82% included content relevant to Race.

• 80% of responses read to be supportive of disabled persons toilets/Changing Places toilets raised potential impacts on the protected characteristic of Disability.

Figure 13: Potential impact on protected characteristics by reading of support for different types of toilet provision

Responses from organisations

105 organisations submitted responses to the call for evidence. The term ‘organisation’ was applied to all responses that did not obviously come from an individual and includes businesses, industry bodies and other interested groups. These responses were subject to further analysis.

Support for different types of toilet provision

Organisation responses were evenly split in terms of the types of toilet provision they were read to be supportive of.

Table 9: Organisation support for different types of toilets

Read to be supportive of:	Number of responses	as % of Organisation responses
Non-gendered toilets	46	44%
Separate sex toilets	45	43%
Non-gendered toilets in addition to separate sex toilets	42	40%
Disabled persons toilets/ Changing Places toilets	15	14%
No preference identified	16	15%

Safety concerns

Organisations were most likely to reference safety concerns for trans/non-binary people and safety concerns for women in relation to toilet provision.

Table 10: Organisation safety concerns

Safety concerns cited in response	Number of responses	as % of Organisation responses
Safety concerns for trans/non-binary people	32	31%
Safety concerns for women	25	24%
Safety concerns for girls	8	8%
Safety concerns for disabled people	5	5%
Safety concerns for children	3	3%
Safety concerns for men	1	1%
Safety concerns for boys	0	0%

Impact of toilet provision upon other issues

Other issues referenced by organisations as being relevant to the call for evidence included the design of toilet facilities/accommodation (including urinals), public toilet availability, disabled persons toilets, and family use/children.

Table 11: Other issues referenced by organisations

Other issues mentioned in or relevant to response	Number of responses	% of Organisation responses
Design of toilet facilities/ accommodation (including urinals)	32	31%
Public toilet availability	22	21%
Disabled persons toilets	18	17%
Family use/ children	17	16%
Management/ cleanliness issues	14	13%
Menstruation	14	13%
Predatory behaviour/ spying	13	12%
Equality Act 2010	12	11%
Signage	12	11%
Queueing to use toilet	11	11%
Building Regulations	10	10%
Medical conditions	7	7%
Sex vs gender debate	6	6%
Intention to improve toilets= good	6	6%
Religion/ faith issues	4	4%

Relevance of responses to Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics

Organisations were most likely to reference Sex, Gender Reassignment, and Disability as the protected characteristics that have the most potential to be impacted (positively or negatively).

Table 12: Organisation responses on potential impacts on protected characteristics

Potential impacts on protected characteristics	Number of responses	% of Organisation responses
Sex	62	59%
Gender reassignment	57	54%
Disability	32	31%
Age	25	24%
Religion or belief	17	16%
Pregnancy and maternity	11	11%
Race	4	4%
Sexual orientation	3	3%
Marriage or civil partnership	0	0%