Research discovers and explores understandings of gender-neutral toilets as spaces of sexual risk

UNIVERSITY NEWS LAST UPDATED : 25 JUNE 2020

New research by social scientists at Birmingham City University and Kingston University London exploring YouTube video commentary has uncovered public views of gender-neutral toilets as sites of sexual danger.

Researchers Dr Ben Colliver and Professor Adrian Coyle conducted a discursive analysis of more than 1,700 online comments in response to ten YouTube videos relating to gender-neutral toilets.

School of Social Sciences

Birmingham City University

The academics found that what appeared to be a debate over public space, soon transformed into questioning morality as women and children were described as being vulnerable to sexual violence, at risk from men and in need of protection when using gender-neutral toilets.

The research saw Colliver and Coyle randomly sample ten videos from the UK and US, which were identified using ‘gender-neutral toilets’ as the search term. Three of the videos were produced by US news stations and covered news stories relating to President Obama’s guidance to schools allowing students to access toilets according to the gender with which they identified.

“Gender-neutral toilets as sites of sexual danger was the most prominent theme,” explained Dr Colliver, who led the study and teaches Criminology at Birmingham City University.

One user stated it’s ‘only a matter of time until someone is molested’, whilst another said ‘two guys in separate incidents have been arrested for filming women in the ladies bathroom.’

Dr Colliver explained: “It’s important to stress that we were studying public understandings and construction and not actual risks or dangers.

“We found that commenters would adopt a moral position as defenders of the safety of women and girls, whilst young girls were treated as the epitome of innocent potential victims,” added Dr Colliver.

Professor Coyle added: “From a discursive perspective, we argue that sexual violence risk can be readily-used in emotionally-charged ways that close down or make it difficult to advance counter arguments that facilitate the ‘othering’ of those who disagree.”

Return to the previous page.