Gender Inequality in Public Toilets | Why Women Are Still Waiting

The familiar queue outside the women’s toilets is not simply the result of women being “slower”. It is often a predictable outcome of public toilets designed around male bodies, routines and social roles.

Giving men and women the same floor area does not necessarily provide the same service. Urinals accommodate more users in less space, while women generally need cubicles and may require additional time for menstruation, pregnancy, clothing or caring for another person. Poor accessibility, missing sanitary bins, inadequate privacy and unsafe locations deepen the inequality.

Addressing gender inequality in public toilets therefore requires more than adding identical toilet blocks. Fair provision should be measured through usable capacity, waiting times, accessibility, safety and whether people can participate in public life without discomfort or humiliation.

Key takeaways

Equal floor space does not produce equal toilet capacity or waiting times.
Public toilets historically developed around men’s greater access to public life.
Menstruation, pregnancy, menopause, clothing and caring responsibilities can increase the time and space women require.
Disabled women, older people, carers, low-income workers and people without secure housing face additional barriers.
Gender-neutral toilets can expand choice, but only when capacity, privacy, accessibility and safety are properly addressed.
Equitable provision means designing for actual users and peak demand—not merely supplying symmetrical rooms.

Why are women’s toilet queues usually longer?

Women’s toilet queues are longer because demand and capacity are mismatched.

A traditional men’s toilet normally contains a combination of urinals and enclosed cubicles. Several urinals can fit into an area that might accommodate only one or two cubicles. In a traditional women’s toilet, almost every user requires a cubicle.

As a result, two toilet blocks can occupy equal amounts of floor space while serving very different numbers of people. The signs on the doors suggest equality; the queue reveals that the service is unequal.

Women may also need more time for practical reasons. Sitting rather than standing, managing more clothing and using toilet paper can all extend a visit. Menstruation, pregnancy, bladder problems and menopause can create additional needs. Women are also more likely to accompany children, older relatives or disabled people because unpaid care remains unequally distributed.

None of these factors means every woman takes longer than every man. Individual needs vary enormously. The relevant design question is whether a facility can meet the average and peak demand of the population expected to use it.

Small differences become large queues

Waiting lines do not grow in a simple, steady way. A venue may appear adequately equipped while demand is low but fail dramatically when hundreds of people arrive during the same short interval.

This is why women’s toilet queues are particularly visible in:

theatres and cinemas;
stadiums and concert venues;
railway stations and airports;
schools and universities;
shopping centres;
festivals and night-time venues; and
motorway service areas.

If users arrive faster than cubicles become available, the queue expands quickly. Adding one cubicle may improve the situation without achieving parity, particularly at venues with fixed intervals.

Equitable toilet design must therefore consider peak use, turnover and waiting times—not only building occupancy or total floor area.

How public toilets came to be designed around men

Public-toilet inequality has historical roots.

During the nineteenth century, industrialising cities introduced more public sanitation infrastructure. Yet streets, workplaces, transport systems and political institutions were largely treated as male domains. Men were expected to work and travel through cities, while prevailing ideas about respectability associated women more closely with the home.

Public conveniences were consequently often provided for men before equivalent facilities were created for women. Urinals were relatively inexpensive and could be installed in compact spaces. Proposals for women’s toilets sometimes encountered resistance because they challenged assumptions about whether respectable women should be present in public at all.

A shortage of facilities restricted how far women could travel and how long they could remain away from home. This has sometimes been described as a “urinary leash”: women’s mobility was effectively limited by the distance between places where they could use a toilet.

That history does not mean every male architect intentionally set out to exclude women. The deeper issue is structural. Architecture, regulation and planning developed in institutions where men dominated decision-making, so male needs were more likely to be treated as standard.

When inadequate assumptions are repeated in building codes, budgets and floor plans, discrimination can persist without requiring a consciously discriminatory designer.

Equal toilet provision is not necessarily equitable

Equality and equity are not interchangeable.

Equal provision might mean allocating the same area to men’s and women’s facilities. Equitable provision means providing enough usable fixtures and appropriate facilities to offer comparable access, dignity and waiting times.

Design measure	Apparently equal approach	Equitable approach
Floor area	Give each toilet block the same area	Allocate space according to capacity and demand
Fixture count	Count every toilet or urinal equally	Consider how each fixture is used and how quickly it serves people
Accessibility	Provide one nominally accessible cubicle	Provide usable accessible facilities that are not obstructed or serving several incompatible purposes
Peak demand	Design around average occupancy	Model intervals, events and other demand surges
Menstrual needs	Assume a cubicle is sufficient	Include privacy, water, soap and covered disposal bins
Caring responsibilities	Put baby changing in women’s toilets	Make changing and family facilities accessible to carers of every gender
Inclusion	Change the sign on an existing room	Assess privacy, safety, capacity and accessibility before redesigning provision

The objective is not to guarantee that nobody ever waits. It is to prevent one group from routinely carrying a disproportionate time cost because the building was designed around another group’s needs.

Women’s practical needs are often missing from the floor plan

Menstruation requires more than a toilet

A cubicle is not genuinely suitable for menstrual care merely because it contains a toilet.

People need a secure lock, privacy, clean water, soap and a safe way to dispose of menstrual products. Depending on the products used, they may also need enough room to change clothing or wash reusable materials.

Yet UNICEF reported in 2024 that fewer than one in three schools worldwide had bins for menstrual waste in girls’ toilets. Globally, 427 million children lacked a basic sanitation service at school—defined as improved, single-sex and usable facilities.

This is a reminder that counting toilets can conceal whether they actually function. A cubicle with no door, water or disposal system exists on an inventory but may be unusable in practice.

Pregnancy and life after childbirth

Pregnancy can increase the frequency and urgency of toilet visits. A cramped cubicle may also be difficult to navigate as the body changes.

After childbirth, some people manage bleeding, stitches, pelvic-floor symptoms or urinary incontinence. Easy, hygienic access becomes a matter of health and dignity—not convenience.

Perimenopause and menopause

Heavy or unpredictable bleeding can occur during perimenopause. Menopause may also be associated with changes in bladder control.

These experiences are common parts of life but have historically received little attention in public infrastructure. Toilets designed around an abstract, able-bodied user can fail people precisely when dependable access matters most.

Clothing takes time and space

Tights, jumpsuits, shapewear, work uniforms, winter layers and some religious or cultural clothing can take longer to manage inside a cubicle. Bags and coats add another difficulty when there are no hooks or dry surfaces.

A well-designed cubicle accounts for ordinary behaviour rather than expecting users to balance their possessions on a sink or place them on the floor.

Women often enter toilets as carers

Women continue to perform a disproportionate share of unpaid care. In public toilets, that can mean helping a child, supporting an older relative or assisting a disabled person.

A standard cubicle may not fit two people, a pram, mobility equipment or shopping bags. Placing baby-changing tables exclusively in women’s toilets also reinforces the idea that childcare belongs to women while excluding fathers and other carers.

Family rooms and changing facilities should be reachable without forcing a carer to enter a toilet designated for another sex or occupy the only wheelchair-accessible cubicle.

Public toilet inequality affects health, dignity and freedom

The consequences extend far beyond annoyance.

People change their behaviour around inadequate toilets

When reliable facilities are unavailable, people may:

drink less before travelling;
avoid long journeys;
leave events early;
plan every outing around known toilets;
delay going to the toilet;
avoid certain parks, town centres or transport routes;
miss part of a performance or sporting event; or
stay home altogether.

One decision may appear minor. Repeated over years, however, these adaptations affect who can move through a city comfortably and spontaneously.

Education can suffer

Inadequate school toilets affect all pupils, but girls who menstruate face additional barriers. Without privacy, water and disposal facilities, managing a period at school can become stressful or impractical.

UNICEF’s global school data show that sanitation provision and menstrual facilities remain far from universal. Poor facilities are not the only cause of period-related absence, so simple claims that menstruation alone makes girls miss a fixed number of school days should be treated cautiously. Nevertheless, inadequate toilets are a recognised barrier to comfort, concentration and attendance.

Workplaces can reproduce toilet inequality

Workers in offices may be able to visit a toilet when needed. Drivers, warehouse staff, factory workers, cleaners, street traders, healthcare workers and employees on monitored production lines often have less control.

The International Labour Organization’s workplace sanitation guidance recognises that facilities must support safe disposal of menstrual products and the hygiene needs of menstruating workers. Access depends not only on whether a toilet exists, but also on whether it is clean, safe and available during working hours.

For mobile and outdoor workers, the absence of public facilities can narrow employment options. A city that closes toilets while expecting people to work on its streets transfers the practical cost to those workers.

Participation in public life is affected

Poor toilet provision can influence whether someone attends a protest, studies in a library, visits a museum, watches a match, takes a child to the park or accepts a job involving travel.

Access to sanitation is therefore connected to freedom of movement and equal participation. Public spaces are not fully public when some people can use them only by tolerating pain, anxiety or repeated inconvenience.

Inequality is not experienced by all women in the same way

Women are not a uniform group. Public toilet inequality intersects with disability, age, income, housing, employment and gender identity.

Disabled women and older users

A toilet labelled “accessible” may still be unusable if:

the route contains steps or narrow doors;
the cubicle is too small;
grab rails are missing or poorly positioned;
the emergency cord is tied up;
the room is used for storage;
the only accessible toilet is locked;
baby-changing equipment obstructs movement; or
the facility lacks equipment for people with complex needs.

Standard accessible toilets do not meet everyone’s requirements. Some people need an adult-sized changing bench, hoist, privacy screen and enough space for carers. Changing Places toilets provide these features.

The UK government estimates that more than 250,000 severely disabled people need this type of facility. Since 2021, certain large new public buildings in England have been required to include Changing Places provision. Existing buildings, however, do not automatically become accessible simply because standards for new construction improve.

Parents and carers

Parents may need space for a pram and more than one child. Carers may be assisting an adult of another gender. Safe family or universal facilities can remove the awkward choice between entering an unsuitable gendered space and leaving someone without assistance.

Low-income people and those without secure housing

Public toilets that charge fees, close early or exist only inside businesses are not equally accessible.

For people experiencing homelessness, a public toilet may be one of very few places available for washing, changing menstrual products or meeting basic bodily needs. Poorer neighbourhoods can also suffer from underinvestment, unreliable maintenance and fewer facilities.

Trans and non-binary people

Gendered toilets can expose trans and non-binary people to anxiety, harassment or challenges about where they belong.

Fully enclosed universal toilets can provide valuable choice. However, converting facilities without considering privacy or capacity can create new problems. Inclusion should expand safe options and usable capacity rather than merely changing signs or removing facilities that some users rely on.

Are gender-neutral toilets the answer?

Gender-inclusive toilets can be part of the solution, but the label alone guarantees very little.

An inclusive design may consist of self-contained rooms containing a toilet, sink and sanitary-disposal bin. Alternatively, a facility may use full-height cubicles with shared handwashing space.

Effective designs should consider:

secure, floor-to-ceiling privacy;
good lighting and visible entrances;
sufficient cubicle numbers;
wheelchair-accessible options;
menstrual-waste bins in relevant cubicles;
changing facilities for carers of every gender;
maintenance and cleaning arrangements;
cultural and religious needs; and
the preferences of people who feel safer in single-sex facilities.

England’s Approved Document T distinguishes between single-sex toilets and “universal toilets”, which are self-contained and available to individual users. Its detailed guidance addresses layouts and privacy, but it does not determine the number of toilets required for every building. Capacity must still be established through other standards and a realistic assessment of use.

That distinction is crucial. An elegant universal toilet is not an adequate solution if one room is expected to serve an entire floor.

What equitable toilet design looks like

1. Measure waiting time, not symmetry

Designers should assess whether different users receive a comparable level of service. Relevant measures include:

expected waiting times;
fixtures available per user;
cubicle turnover;
walking distance;
operating hours;
breakdowns and closures; and
performance during peak demand.

Venues with short intervals should model those peaks rather than designing only around daily averages.

2. Provide more usable cubicles where demand requires them

Equitable provision will often require more cubicles for women than traditional equal-area layouts provide. Flexible banks of fully enclosed toilets may also help venues respond to changing audiences, provided accessibility, privacy and safeguarding are built in.

This principle is sometimes called “potty parity”: toilet regulations and planning decisions should address unequal waiting times rather than assuming identical provision is fair.

3. Design every cubicle for real use

A functional cubicle needs:

a dependable lock;
adequate internal space;
a hook or shelf for possessions;
toilet paper;
good lighting and ventilation;
a covered sanitary bin;
nearby soap and running water; and
a cleaning and repair system.

A fixture that is filthy, broken or permanently locked should not be counted as usable capacity.

4. Separate accessibility from convenience features

The only wheelchair-accessible toilet should not routinely double as the sole baby-changing room, cleaning cupboard and general overflow facility.

Buildings should provide the right mix of standard accessible toilets, ambulant-accessible cubicles, family facilities and Changing Places toilets. These facilities solve different problems and cannot automatically substitute for one another.

5. Make toilets easy to find and safe to reach

Public toilet accessibility begins before the door.

Facilities need clear signs, step-free routes and entrances located where users do not feel hidden or trapped. Lighting, sightlines and nearby activity can improve perceived safety without compromising privacy inside.

Opening hours should also match the surrounding public space. A park toilet that closes hours before the park does leaves an avoidable gap in provision.

6. Ask diverse users before finalising the design

Consultation should include:

women of different ages;
disabled people;
parents and unpaid carers;
trans and non-binary people;
people with bowel or bladder conditions;
cleaners and maintenance workers;
shift, mobile and outdoor workers; and
people who use the location at different times of day.

Cleaners are particularly important participants. Poorly planned layouts can be difficult to maintain, while inadequate cleaning resources can render an otherwise thoughtful design unusable.

7. Audit what happens after opening

Equitable toilet design is an ongoing service, not a one-time construction decision.

Councils, schools, employers and venue operators can collect anonymised information about:

queue lengths at peak periods;
complaints and reported barriers;
cleaning frequency;
broken locks and fixtures;
accessible-toilet availability;
changing-facility demand; and
times when users leave without gaining access.

Observing actual use may reveal problems that were invisible on the architectural plan.

What individuals and organisations can do now

If you encounter inadequate provision, document the specific failure. “The toilets are unfair” is easy to dismiss; a clear description is harder to ignore.

Record details such as:

the approximate waiting time;
the number of operational cubicles;
whether the accessible facility was usable;
missing bins, soap, water or locks;
unsafe access routes;
inadequate baby-changing provision; and
whether the problem occurred during predictable peak demand.

Send the information to the venue operator, employer, school, transport provider or local authority. Ask what standard informed the current provision and whether demand has been assessed since the facility opened.

Organisations can begin with a practical toilet audit, repair unusable fixtures immediately and introduce a longer-term capacity and accessibility plan. Small maintenance improvements matter, but they should not become a substitute for structural changes when the underlying number or layout of facilities is inadequate.

Conclusion: a queue can reveal who a city was built for

Gender inequality in public toilets is not caused by one fixture or one architect. It results from a long history of treating male patterns of movement and bodily needs as the default, then confusing equal space with equal service.

Women’s toilet queues make that design bias visible. But the wider problem also includes inaccessible cubicles, unsafe locations, missing menstrual facilities, unsuitable changing provision and toilets that are locked when people need them.

Fair public toilets enable people to work, learn, travel and participate without planning their lives around avoidable discomfort. The goal is not simply more doors marked “women”. It is a sanitation system designed around real bodies, responsibilities and patterns of use.

Call to action: The next time you encounter a long queue or unusable facility, report the precise problem and ask the organisation responsible how it measures equitable access. Public toilets should be treated as essential infrastructure—and designed with the people who depend on them.

Frequently asked questions

Why do women wait longer for public toilets?

Women generally have access to fewer usable fixtures because cubicles require more space than urinals. Menstruation, clothing, pregnancy and caring for another person can also increase the time or space required. During peak demand, these capacity differences quickly produce queues.

Were public toilets designed for men?

Many early public conveniences were created primarily for men because men’s presence in work, travel and civic life was treated as normal. Women’s provision developed later and often remained inadequate. This reflects structural gender bias, although it does not mean every individual designer deliberately intended to discriminate.

How many women’s toilets should a venue provide?

There is no universal ratio suitable for every venue. Provision should reflect the audience, occupancy, fixture type, average use and peak demand. A theatre with a short interval needs a different calculation from a small office or park.

Do gender-neutral toilets reduce women’s queues?

They can allow available cubicles to be used more flexibly, but they are not an automatic solution. Too few cubicles will still create queues. Privacy, accessibility, menstrual facilities, safeguarding and the availability of single-sex options must also be considered.

What is “potty parity”?

Potty parity is the principle that toilet provision should deliver equitable access and waiting times for women and men. It recognises that identical floor areas or fixture numbers may still produce unequal results.

Sources

Back to blog

Country/region