Queues show who loses at the loos
when the first public flushing toilets in the mid-19th century were installed, but only for men?
Public space was for men. Women’s place was in the home, so no need for the expense of ladies’ public loos. Not surprisingly, women found it difficult to travel or attend public events, so didn’t.
Dunedin was a little more forward thinking, installing a few women’s toilets in the Octagon in 1911 although women had to pay for the privilege.
Now you might think this is all a little storm in a cistern but it is a serious issue. Reports late last year from the Rail & Maritime Transport Union said women were taking medication to dehydrate themselves because there were no toilets for them in their workplace.
There are building codes that state that if you have more women using the space, there should be more toilets. But the provisions in the buildings we currently work and play in mean, whatever the rules are, the fact is women often need to queue for considerable time to spend a penny – although at least now it’s free.
But let’s think about the architects of the past who designed the buildings in which women queue.
How many actually had the experience of waiting in queues? Or trying to attend to a wriggly toddler in the cubicle? Or thought about the needs of someone using the hand basin or opening the door of an accessible toilet? Or considered how uncomfortable people may be when having to choose which door to go through?
Having appropriate facilities, or not, indicates who is welcome, or unwelcome, in our public spaces.
It’s time to flush this legacy of spaces that exclude people. Gender neutral toilets are increasing and, if set up thoughtfully, the evidence shows they can reduce queues or, at least bring equality to the wait.
So here’s to future potty parity. Our bladders will thank you for it.