Charles portrait will replace the Queen’s in town halls and schools

Following a deeply distressing incident in a theatre, JOAN SMITH asks why on earth anyone thinks gender-neutral toilets are a sensible idea

SCHOOLS, courts, councils and police stations will display a new framed official portrait of King Charles, funded by the Government, to cement support for the new monarch after his coronation.

The move, being driven by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Oliver Dowden, is intended to strengthen ‘civic pride’ at the start of the new reign.

Writing in The Mail on Sunday today, Mr Dowden says: ‘These portraits are another opportunity to honour that spirit, to remember what unites us – and to mark a new chapter in the long and proud history of our nation.’

It is understood that an official photographer has yet to be chosen for the portrait, which will replace the portraits of Queen Elizabeth II currently on display in many public institutions. A Cabinet Office source said: ‘The scheme will be opened later this year following the coronation and the release of the official portraits of His Majesty by the Royal Household.

‘Those public authorities who are eligible will be offered the opportunity to request one free framed portrait once it is released.’

John Glen, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said: ‘This scheme will allow thousands of public institutions across the UK to mark this defining moment in our nation’s history with pride. The Coronation of His Majesty the King is an opportunity for the whole country to unite, and these new portraits continue a very British tradition to celebrate this momentous occasion.’

Ministers hope the move will offset republican sentiment in Leftwing councils and universities.

Two years ago Gavin Williamson, the then Education Secretary, described as ‘absurd’ the cancelling of the Queen by Oxford University students, who voted to take down an ‘unwelcoming’ portrait because ‘she represents recent colonial history’.

Members of the middle common room at Magdalen College said ‘patriotism and colonialism are not really separable’. They added that they intended to replace the portrait with ‘art by or of other influential and inspirational people’, and subject any future depictions of the Royal Family to a vote.

Mr Williamson said: ‘Oxford University students removing a picture of the Queen is simply absurd. She is the Head of State and a symbol of what is best about the UK.’

THE interval was almost over at my local theatre, the Lyric in London’s Hammersmith, and yet still I stood nervously at the toilet door. A sign on it, in flowing script, was what had prompted my hesitation: ‘Loos – all genders welcome.’

I hadn’t used an ‘all-genders’ loo before, one which – unlike on trains or on planes – both men and women can use at the same time.

The thought made me feel distinctly uncomfortable. And when I pushed open the door, I froze.

On my left were five urinals. At the far end, the door just a couple of feet away from the row of urinals, was a lone cubicle.

The space was empty, but it was clear that to use the cubicle, women were expected to walk past a row of men peeing.

And God forbid if, as happens in most theatres and other entertainment venues without adequate facilities for women, there’s a queue.

Did theatre bosses really think this was acceptable to women? Or to men, for that matter?

With time ticking on, I didn’t have a choice. But before I could leave, a man came in to use the facilities. We stared at each other in equal horror. He clearly felt as uncomfortable as I did.

Shaken, I took a picture of the all-genders loo, posting it on Twitter to see if anyone felt the same way I did.

‘Horrible “public” toilets at the Lyric Hammersmith,’ I wrote. ‘Five urinals and one cubicle for women? Who actually wants this?’

By the time the final curtain fell, the photo had been viewed thousands of times, and messages were pouring in.

‘The Lyric have already had complaints about this, yet here we still are,’ one woman told me.

‘I won’t go there any more,’ said another. ‘They’ve ignored the questions I’ve asked about their set-up and are clearly not interand ested.’ A week on, and my tweet has been viewed 867,000 times and liked by 4,500 people. Most of those who’ve been in touch don’t want ‘gender-neutral’ loos in theatres or anywhere else, yet they seem to be springing up all over the place.

GRANTED, the Lyric also still has what it calls ‘gender-specific’ toilets for those prepared to seek them out. But other theatres, including the Barbican Centre and the Old Vic, have introduced similar free-for-all facilities.

How, as a society, did anyone ever think this was a good idea?

In the 19th Century, women could not leave home without calculating how long they would be outdoors – where they might find almost non-existent public facilities. Campaigners for women’s loos called it the ‘urinary leash’.

It was a huge step forwards when women’s toilets eventually became part of the architecture of everyday life. But the days of these being known as ‘public conveniences’ seems to be over.

There’s nothing remotely convenient about being forced to share toilet facilities with the opposite sex. Most women I know don’t want that – men’s toilets are famously insalubrious, as they themselves will admit.

But men don’t want us queuing behind them as they pee either. Yet today, women’s bathrooms are being sacrificed for gender ideology.

The idea is that the small number of people who are transgender or non-binary – who do not identify as being either male or female – may feel more comfortable in facilities which are shared, or at least do not distinguish between biological sexes.

Before anyone knew what was happening, women’s loos started disappearing, and with them a woman’s right to challenge any man who walks into one.

Personally, I don’t believe in the idea of an innate ‘gender identity’ which may be different from your biological sex. It’s unscientific nonsense, and the modern equivalent of claiming the Earth is flat. To alter the world to accommodate the minority of people who do believe this seems nonsensical.

According to the 2021 Census, only 0.5 per cent of people in England and Wales said their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth.

It’s ironic that organisations that boast about being ‘inclusive’ seem happy to ignore anyone who disagrees with them, especially if the objections come from middle-aged or older women, who make up a far greater proportion of the population.

The argument that gets thrown back at us is that not all men – or all transwomen – are a danger to women. That is, of course, true. But the problem is that some are, and we can’t tell the difference.

The only solution is to keep them all out of our toilets.

The Government agrees, announcing last summer that all new public buildings should have separate male and female toilets.

Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch has also said schools should not have gender-neutral loos for ‘privacy’. What the Lyric believes is unclear. It hasn’t responded to my tweets, or to a polite email I sent them.

As a resident of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which currently funds the Lyric to the tune of £230,000 a year, I asked how it consulted the public before making the change, and how many complaints it’s had.

Its current production is the Italian playwright Dario Fo’s farce Accidental Death Of An Anarchist.

But the real farce is just outside the auditorium, behind a door marked ‘gender-neutral loos’.