Recent discussion about all-gender toilets in Tasmania has been dismissed in some quarters as “mischievous misinformation.” But many women raising concerns about privacy, dignity and public design are not spreading misinformation at all. They are asking reasonable questions about how major public facilities are being planned, and whether women’s needs are still being properly considered.
The recent debate surrounding the Northern Suburbs Community Recreation Hub in Mowbray has highlighted how quickly legitimate public discussion can be dismissed rather than engaged with thoughtfully. The Hub’s all-gender amenities have been defended by the Tasmanian Government as modern, inclusive and evidence-based, with reference to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and changes connected to the National Construction Code (NCC).
This debate is not really about whether optional unisex facilities should exist. Most people already use them in some form — accessible toilets, parent rooms, family facilities and single-user cubicles are common and practical. Many women support having those options available, particularly for parents, carers and people with disabilities.
The concern arises when public infrastructure begins shifting away from clearly designated women’s spaces altogether, especially in sporting and community settings where privacy matters.
The Government argues that the Hub’s design improves safety through open circulation areas, strong visibility and the elimination of isolated spaces. These principles come from CPTED, a longstanding planning approach that focuses on reducing hidden or poorly supervised areas.
That is a legitimate design philosophy. But it is also reasonable to ask whether these principles fully account for the different ways women and girls experience privacy, vulnerability and dignity in intimate spaces such as toilets, showers and change rooms.
For many women, sex-specific spaces provide a sense of comfort, certainty and cultural privacy that cannot simply be replaced by saying every cubicle is fully enclosed.
This is particularly relevant in sporting environments used by girls and women of different ages, backgrounds and religious communities. Female participation in public life has historically depended on adequate female facilities in schools, workplaces and sporting venues. That is one reason why concerns about the National Construction Code changes have attracted submissions from women’s advocacy groups across Australia.
Importantly, disagreement over these changes should not automatically be framed as hostility toward transgender people. Public policy works best when competing needs can be discussed openly and respectfully. A society should be capable of supporting inclusion while also recognising that women may continue to value female-only spaces in some contexts.
There is also a difference between providing additional options and replacing existing expectations altogether. Many Tasmanians would likely support a balanced approach: retain clearly designated women’s and men’s facilities while also offering optional self-contained unisex spaces for anyone who prefers them.
Unfortunately, much of the public discussion has become polarised. Once concerns are labelled “misinformation,” meaningful debate becomes more difficult. People become reluctant to ask questions or raise practical concerns for fear of being dismissed or attacked.
But public buildings belong to the whole community. Decisions about how they are designed should involve open discussion, transparency and genuine engagement with a broad range of users — including women who may feel their concerns are increasingly overlooked.
Tasmanians are capable of having a mature discussion about public facilities without reducing the issue to slogans or accusations. Women asking for privacy, dignity and the continued recognition of sex-specific needs should not be treated as obstacles to inclusion. Their voices are part of the community too.
Dr. Elizabeth Caballero
Women Speak Tasmania
Op-ed to The Mercury on 01.05.26