Why Are Toilets Separated by Sex?

Public toilets are mandated to be segregated based on biological sex all around the world: one for men, another for women. However, the practice of separating public toilets wasn't prominent until quite recently. For instance, in the United States (US), laws mandating this separation were enacted only in the late 19th century.

Separating toilets is actually an intriguing phenomenon. Most of us in Asian societies think that it's a form of respect. Respect for who or what I do not know. Some say it's to safeguard women's privacy and some say it stops men from harassing women when they're doing their business. These might make sense, but it certainly isn't historical.

Upon philosophical contemplation, it makes more sense to not segregate public toilets. In philosopher Christine Overall's essay Public Toilets, she laid out arguments for and against segregating public toilets, then concluded it makes more (anti-sexist) sense to eliminate segregation.

But how did such segregation happen in the first place?

To understand why public toilets are segregated today, we need to look back to 19th century Europe.

During this time, many areas of life in Europe were sex-segregated. This also applies to many East Asian societies. It was thought that women belonged in the private sphere of life. Their social roles and thus, virtues, belonged in the house. Women were thought to be better caregivers and homemakers than men.

On the other hand, men were thought to belong in the public sphere: politics, work, and labour. Their social roles and thus, virtues belonged outside the house. So, while women support the family within the walls of a home, men support the family beyond those walls.

This idea that men and women each belong to separate spheres of life is called separate spheres ideology.

This way of thinking wasn't exclusive to Europe, nor was it exclusive to that period in history. It was and still is very prevalent in many patriarchal and hierarchical East Asian civilisations.

Since men were thought to belong in the public sphere of life, public toilets were initially set up exclusively for men. This was meant to prohibit women from travelling too far and too long away from home.

With this sociological backdrop, there are at least two competing theories about why public toilets were segregated. I'll convince you that one is more plausible than the other.

The Safe Haven Hypothesis

Law professor Terry Kogan suggests one hypothesis. Kogan argues that as more women gradually take on work in the public sphere during the early 20th century, there is an increasing need to provide them with various public facilities. That includes public toilets.

Furthermore, as gender segregation was still prominent then, Kogan believes that these public toilets act as a 'safe-haven' for women in the public sphere. These toilets are akin to a 'private space' in the public realm. To put it crudely, they are a piece of home.

This hypothesis is sexist in various ways (I'm not saying Kogan is sexist; it's his hypothesis). The most evident is that it assumes that the separate sphere ideology has created a culture where we think women need physical protection in the public sphere. That implies that they are physically incapable of fending themselves. Thus, they need facilities to seek refuge in.

If it were true that public toilets are segregated for this purpose, and we're moving away from sexism, then wouldn't it make sense to eliminate this segregation today?

The safe-haven hypothesis might seem plausible in the not-so-distant-past. But it seems less plausible after three waves of feminism hit the shores of our contemporary societies. The idea that women need physical and psychological refuge seems rather far-fetched in today's world.

Furthermore, we can observe that not every public space is installed with gender-segregated toilets. Simple instances include public transport: planes, buses, trains, etc. All have unisex toilets. If Kogan's hypothesis is true, we would expect to see separate toilets in these places as well, and more than ever.

Another example: since 2015, Scottish schools are implementing unisex toilets specifically to address the issues of bullying. Although the main rationale is to address the issue of gender identity, it nevertheless shows how separated toilets are seen to be contrary to a 'safe-haven'.

Voting, Jobs, and Toilets

The early-19 century saw women's suffrage. It gave women the ability to vote. That means men and women are now able to engage in politics. Along with this movement, women gradually began taking on men's jobs.

In Claudia Elphick's article, she discusses how World War I has created many jobs for women in munition factories. Women were then entering once male-dominated workplaces and taking on jobs that were once thought to be reserved for men. As a result, they began demanding equal access to various public facilities. That included public toilets.

The American historian Leslie Hume argued the World War finally gave women a role in politics. In taking up jobs in munition production, women are contributing to the nation. As such, it would've been 'illogical and ungrateful to deny them a place in the voting booth'.

The widespread installation of women's toilets coincided with a very broad feminist movement. It coincided with women's right to vote, their rights to engage in politics, and their rights to the working world.

Public laws were then enacted specifically to safeguard women's role in the public realm. It's a public statement that women belong there.

If this view is true, then we have a beautiful historical irony. Sex-segregating public toilets are a product of a dilapidated monolith of sex-segregation. Separating toilets by sex means ending separate sex ideology.

I think this view seems plausible as it helps account the widespread of sex-segregated toilets worldwide.

Westernisation

Much of our literature discusses the history of sex-segregated toilets in the Western world. Few have dealt with other parts of the world.

As mentioned earlier, separate sex ideology isn't exclusively Western. Many East Asian societies possess a similar and oftentimes stronger ideology. For instance, in ancient China, women weren't allowed to leave the house. Similar to 19th century Europe, the woman's place was thought to be in the house. It was the man's duty to work outside the house.

Confucian doctrines have also dictate women's virtue as being a private virtue. For instance, in the Mencius (an influential work in Confucian intellectualism) it is written that 'between husband and wife, there should be attention to their separate functions,' Here, the Chinese philosopher Mengzi specifically refers to the social functions of men and women. He argues that society needs to educate people on these differences and adhere to strict gender conducts.

Public toilets didn't confine usage to any particular sex then. Since most women weren't supposed to leave the house, it was long seen that public toilets were meant mostly for men. The political philosophy, and not public infrastructure, did most of the work perpetuating sex segregation ideology.

Sex-segregation was very much prominent in East Asian societies. It wasn't until colonialism came into East Asian history that we've seen a movement towards any forms of gender inequality.

This movement wasn't directly reflected in the history of public facilities (as historians have much more pressing issues to deal with then). However, intellectual history reveals that ideas about gender equality and acknowledging women's place in the public realm coincided with the Westernising of Eastern societies.

Abolishing the private-public distinction came together with ideas of egalitarianism, individualism, democracy, and equality. For instance, China's May Fourth Movement sought to end its millennia-long Confucian institution that has denied women access to basic rights such as education and work. Women were also given a role in the political realm.

If sex-separated toilets are a product of a society acknowledging women's place in the public realm, then it aptly explains why once sexist societies now have sex-segregated toilets. Thus, any society that recognises women's contribution to the public realm will have sex-segregated public toilets.

A Beautiful Irony

Recent debates about sex-segregating toilets are motivated by transgender issues. Many of us see that separate-sex toilets force us to choose between two and only two genders. Advocators of unisex toilets argue that having separate-sex toilets perpetuate a false dichotomy about gender.

However, the history of public toilets tells us that this is quite contrary to the case. In fact, thinking about public toilets being separated isn't actually historically accurate. Rather, women's toilets are an addition. They symbolise the historical inclusion of women in the public sphere of life, and they are a public statement that they do.

Thus, women's toilets aren't an instrument for sex-segregation. Nor are they some safe-haven. They are quite ironically a public symbol to remind us that women have a place right beside men.

Published in History of Yesterday, Medium by the same author.