For transgender people, bathrooms can really stink! Fortunately, Vancouverites have had ample chance to think creatively about bathroom access this year. In 2013, the Vancouver Parks Board struck a Trans* and Gender-Variant Inclusion Working Group to make recommendations on the city’s facilities, programming, training, and policies. In April 2014, the group presented its report, “Building a Path to Parks and Recreation for All: Reducing Barriers for Trans* & Gender-Variant Community Members.” The Parks Board was unanimous in its approval of the report’s 77 points. City dwellers that are new to trans issues might ask: how could there be 77 changes made to these spaces in which we make our #1s and #2s?

Sex-segregated bathrooms are places where simmering discomfort with transgender comes to a head. These scenarios might mean being stared at, treated suspiciously, asked to leave, assaulted, or arrested. For example, in 2002, transgender lawyer Dean Spade (Seattle) was arrested for using a men’s room in Grand Central Station. In 2010, a student at Cal State-Long Beach was followed into a bathroom, attacked, and had the word “IT” carved into his chest. A former lifeguard in Vancouver (who prefers to remain anonymous) describes a situation in which a trans woman was asked to leave a city pool after staff heard complaints about her presence. The author of this post can also tell many tales of being reported to staff at prairie YMCAs, quizzed about intimate body details by pool staff, or followed into bathrooms and confronted.

No wonder, then, that trans people insist that accessibility be rethought. In our city, this means we can soon expect to see non-gendered washrooms in parks, non-gendered signs on expanded universal change rooms, and more private changing stalls in all change rooms. There will also be increased support (via rental subsidies) to events such as the All Bodies Swim, a body-positive event that welcomes queer, trans, and disabled people to swim together.

This is good news. Let the champagne (and urine) flow freely! However, as disability and race advocates know, social inclusion is not achieved by mandated access alone. After all, a sidewalk is a “gender-neutral” space, but women who are commonly harassed know that policy alone does not defeat inequality. How can our city’s public spaces bring to life the promise of the new signs and facilities? Beyond the signs, how is gender-neutrality enacted?

Here are five small suggestions from the outlook of one transgender Vancouverite.

1. Know that trans people often face multiple types of discrimination. As we are often discriminated against in workplaces, the biggest barrier to public space a trans person might face is a high cover charge.
2. Because trans people often report disproportionate targeting by law enforcement, be mindful that many trans people will avoid spaces in which contact with law enforcement is more likely.
3. Choose venues with non-gendered washrooms, or else post a handmade sign on the washrooms.
4. Don’t require legal pieces of IDs for participation (or be welcoming to people with unconventional pieces of ID).
5. Use architecture and installation to imagine new kinds of bathrooms.

On the last point, here are two examples. Consider Monica Bonvicini’s piece, “Don’t Miss a Sec,” a functioning public bathroom encased in one-way mirrors. The effect is that the curious public crowds the mirrored box, squinting to see inside – while the bathroom user has the feeling of relieving oneself on a big public stage with the public scrutinizing. Such art might give a non-trans person a sample of what it feels like to be trans in a public washroom!

Architects Diller Scofidio + Renfro break down bathroom walls quite literally. In Brasserie, a mid-town Manhattan restaurant they designed in 2001, one long sink spans both bathrooms. The barely opaque wall between the rooms parts to let the sink pass. One small drain is located between the two rooms. Gendered wastewater swirls together and disappears. This whimsical design acknowledges – as will public spaces in Vancouver – that all of our gendered fluids end up in the same place anyhow. Recognizing this might just make bathrooms stink a little less for our city’s transgender, transsexual, and gender-variant dwellers.

]]> https://vancouverpublicspace.ca/2014/10/08/ethinking-accessibility-safe-public-spaces-for-the-trans-gender-variant-community/feed/ 0 https://vancouverpublicspace.ca/2011/02/24/favourite-places-and-the-people-that-inhabit-them-heritage-spots-and-granville-dance-parties/ https://vancouverpublicspace.ca/2011/02/24/favourite-places-and-the-people-that-inhabit-them-heritage-spots-and-granville-dance-parties/#comments Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:49:53 +0000 http://vancouverpublicspace.wordpress.com/?p=891 Photo by Kevin Tran

This just in… a couple of interesting public space-related initiatives that you might have heard about, which combined tell something of a story about public life in Vancouver. (Okay, I’ll leave it to you to determine whether there’s really a link here: it’s just that news of these two items landed on my desk at the same time and I couldn’t help but think about the connection.)

First up, a initiative coming out of the Vancouver Heritage Foundation.

As part of the City’s 125th birthday celebrations, the Foundation is launching a project called Places that Matter and is asking people to help create a list of 125 favourite places around the Vancouver. These don’t have to be public spaces per se (though chances are there’ll more than a few that’ll make the list), but can include buildings, streets, natural settings and more… including, it would seem, people and events.

The definition is broad and inclusive, and you can submit a photo, as well as a short explanation of why you thing the site is so important. The only limitation is that the ‘places’ submitted have to have a history prior to 1991 (or 20-25 years old) and be located within the boundaries of the City of Vancouver. (It’s too bad about the latter part, as it means there will be some favourite places that are excluded as a result (like the Central library building, as well as some of our excellent new community centres and parks.)

The call for submissions lasts until March 15 at which point the public will have a chance to vote on their favourites through to early April. Once the 125 ‘winners’ are determined, a commemorative plaque will be developed for each and installed over the summer and Fall. You can also see the spots that have been nominated already.

One other note: you can also check out the Heritage Foundation’s display at the Central Library (interesting venue choice!) this Saturday, February 26 between 10am and 4pm. They’ll be taking nominations there as well.

Of course places need people in them in order to generate a sense of vitality. And that’s where the second piece comes into play. (Or not!)

Tom and Gary’s Decentralized Dance Party – which were part of the lively (and unofficial) Olympic shenanigans a year ago – had planned an outdoor party to coincide with the one year anniversary of Sidney Crosby’s gold-medal goal in the hockey final. The event, which was to take place this Saturday night on Granville Street, has drawn grumbles from City. Among the concerns that have been outlined: crowd control, safety, security, sidewalk congestion and sanitation issues. A letter from the City’s Legal Department has been presented to the organizers, asking them to think twice.

Are we back to No Fun City?

It’s an interesting dilemma, because on one hand, it is important to ensure spaces that are safe for residents and partiers alike. On the other hand… it’s Granville Street. It’s Saturday night. The so-called entertainment district, for better or worse, was created precisely for this sort of aggregation of people. Shouldn’t we already be able to deal with these sorts of things? After all, it’s probably the most policed part of the city as it is. And while the lack of bathrooms may pose a problem, perhaps its time to look at even more public toilets in the downtown. The buses, well, that’s a decent point. (Probably should have left them on Howe and Richards, but that’s another story…).

Reading between the lines, the real issue, I think, has something to do with a sort of civic anxiety about the unpredictability of public life – which manifests itself in the effort (some would say need), to maintain control over public gathering. This is where things like insurance waivers and permits and all of the other tools and mechanisms come into place.

The antithesis of this control is spontaneity – even planned spontaneity of the Decentralized Dance Party sort. But perhaps we as a city need to start thinking a little harder about how to enable (support, allow–pick a verb…) these sorts of things. After all, Tom and Gary have done a pretty decent job of throwing flash-mob style parties over the last couple of years, and surely this counts for something.

Talk to planners and engineers about public life and they’ll start to reference about the idea of “programming public space” to make sure it works. The idea here, is to create a scheduling of activities and events that help to activate a space and provide a degree of animation for public enjoyment.

But while the notion of ‘programming’ space is useful, there is also an equally important need to allow for unprogrammed activity as well. This is how you achieve a balance of activities and street life that feels authentic, not Disney, in nature. And this is why Tom and Gary’s gig is so cool — it’s because it’s not really part of the ‘official’ City-sanctioned “Rediscover Granville” narrative… even though it fits with it so very neatly.

Part of the challenge, for people like Tom and Gary, is that being ‘unprogrammed’ and spontaneous within the existing regulatory format can be onerous, costly, and challenging. First there’s the Special Event Permit fee, then there are insurance considerations, followed by potential requirements for extra police and sanitation workers and other costs. By the time you’ve added all these items together, grassroots initiatives of this sort can end up costing hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.

I’m not saying that these items shouldn’t be accounted for. But perhaps it’s time for the City to review how these sorts of events are handled. After all, if we’re at a point where we can look at cutting red-tape for temporary performance spaces, then maybe we could also start to think of doing the same for our outdoor gathering spaces as well.