negotiating gender in public spaces

Two months ago I moved to Sweden. A progressive Scandinavian country, Sweden is globally known as the leader in the world’s battle towards gender equality. A total of sixteen months of maternity leave is mandatory for parents, three months of which must be taken by the father, if he is present. This is the longest paid leave in the world, and coincides with heavily subsidised childcare, with no family paying more than 1230 Swedish kronor (£113) a month per child. Similarly, in 1972 Sweden became the first country to legally allow the change of gender identity, and in 2015 the gender neutral pronoun of ‘hen’ was officially included in the Swedish dictionary. It’s not surprising, therefore, that when I first moved here I was faced with sharing a public toilet with men. Double takes and confusion are still common, but Sweden is on its way to neutralising all public toilets, not only in schools and universities - as is most common around the world - but in public libraries and restaurants too. It’s happening everywhere and no one seems to care, but still I am surprised when I see a man coming out of the cubicle before me, or a set of urinals that (admittedly) are barely ever used. Why hasn’t the UK prepared me for a more liberal and inclusive way of relieving oneself in public?

I would argue that it is a heteronormative assumption that exclusively women and men wish to be separated, when gendered public spaces are a daily battleground for those who identify outside the gender binary. According to the 2001 census data, the amount of people who ticked ‘other’ when asked their gender made up 0.4% of the population, meaning 1 in every 250 people. When also taking into account sexual orientation, it would seem the basic division of men and women is not the best way of ensuring ‘safety’ in the poo place. One of the main arguments against neutralizing toilets comes in defence of survivors of sexual assault. That is to say that women do not wish to be faced with the sight of a penis in a urinal as this may be triggering, but who is to say that sexual assault only occurs when a man forces himself onto a woman? Sexual violence can occur between two people no matter their gender or sexual orientation, and if the desire to keep people safe is our main incentive, then why not also protect the non-binary community? Assault against queer people in gendered spaces happens daily, as someone may not appear to ‘belong’ in their cubicle of choice. The result is the alienation of a portion of our society that is rapidly growing and deserves equal rights. I’m not suggesting that changing a logo on a door is a one-way ticket to an inclusive space, but it’s a simple way of making a gesture of support towards those of us who are tackling our society’s most entrenched flaws.

Today’s bathrooms seem to embody our current understanding of gender stereotypes. Women require baby changing facilities because they are the primary caregivers, whilst men require to pee as quickly as possible to get back to their high-paid jobs, using urinals. Why should men lack cleanliness and toilet paper, whilst women get hand cream and mile long queues. Thus, choosing between the two seems to be placing yourself within a stereotype, or ‘misgendering’ yourself. The current alternative provided by the UK is most often to declare yourself ‘disabled’, which is most often not true, and adds extra strain to already poor services for people with special needs. I’m also not suggesting that bathrooms should be a free-for-all where we all pee and poo together as the ancient Greeks would have. Privacy in locked cubicles is of course a necessity, but who cares about the sexual orientation or genitalia of the human in the locked cubicle next to you?