Another BBC mess: "Do you think it’s right to tell transgender people which toilet to use?" Let's ask some men...

The point I was making is that Nick has now made it difficult for anything but a range of opinions to be included

Your efforts to interpret this as a bad thing, or unlikely to happen, are really quite risible.

I reckon they can simply get one of their own staff on to balance. Or the presenters themselves will take up that argument.

I doubt there will be a time when there will be no activists who will agree to be interviewed. Peter tatchell is always up to be interviewed after all.

Why? Do you think that no one will agree to speak to defend male people accessing female single sex provisions?

Since when?

Don't be daft. There will be plenty of BBC presenters willing to put the anti-women pov.

And yet…. You cannot see the issue with dismissing the lack of female people’s consent in you being there.

There is a term for the behaviour of male people who ignore female people’s individual or collective consent.

Just because you are not challenged doesn’t mean that female people haven’t correctly understood your correct sex category. If you don’t understand female behaviour in the face of being in a situation that they find harmful to them, don’t assume you are not harming female people with your presence.

If you need us to continue to explain consent, safeguarding, predatory male behaviour and the harms that male people accessing a female single sex provision when that male is over about 8 years old, just ask.

It's not - that's not the point I was making. The point I was making is that Nick has now made it difficult for anything but a range of opinions to be included. So if there is a (sensible) GC person ready to talk but no opposing side is willing - then there will be no discussion period. Whereas previously (recently at least) we've benefited from the platforming of GC views.

How will you know that you have not caused an issue by using the space? No-one challenging you does not mean that you have not caused an issue. That simply demonstrates how little you understand the realities of being a woman or girl.

I can’t imagine why it would be a negative to have a range of views presented. I also cannot think of one feminist who would agree to be on the BBC that would be at all concerned about a discussion that included a person with an opposing view.

The ones I can think of that would be ask would welcome that discussion. I cannot understand it being considered to be some kind of ‘backfire’ outcome.

But of course, we are to be derided for somehow not comprehending the post.

It’s pretty simple. You either use the space without issue and bring challenged or you don’t

Errm. We tell everyone which toilet to use…

That seems to be projection on your part.

Who arbitrates who ‘blends’ in enough and who doesn’t?

That sounds transphobic.

If a male person says they should have access to a female single sex provision, surely the point is that if one has access they all have access. it is transphobic to arbitrate which male people can have access and which male people can’t above about 8 years old.

Apologies, but I genuinely don't understand the point you were making.

Please could you explain why it would be bad to have a range of opinons represented? Why would that be a threat?

Imagine not being able to comprehend simple words!

How is this supposed to work under your 'don't ask, don't tell' policy?

Who is deciding who is worrying?

Ignoring female people’s lack of consent by deception is still ignoring female people’s lack of consent.

But no man can ever know that he 'truly blends in', even if such a thing were possible. You might get no pushback but many women are too scared to pushback at an obviously transgressive male, and many traumatised women will just get out as quickly as possible and never use those loos again.

'Blending in' for you means you look in the mirror and think 'that'll do'.

It is irrelevant really.

You cannot guarantee that not one female person will correctly identify the sex category your body was formed around through observation and interaction. You are male. Therefore the accurate comparison is to my husband and not to female people and whether he ‘looks like a woman’ is frankly and bluntly totally irrelevant.

’Blending in’ is not acceptable entrance criteria for a male person accessing a female single sex provision.

I think truly blending in means there will no opportunity to make anyone worry

Is blending in going to include always sitting down to pee, and wiping all surfaces when finished?

You didn't say blend in. You said 'do your best to blend in'. You think that men deserve the 'reward' of women's spaces for making an effort to blend in.

He wouldn't need to.

Don't ask, don't tell.

Does your husband look like a woman? That’s the only way I could imagine him blending in

Men have no place using women's toilets/changing rooms etc.

“You do your best to blend in and be pleasant, and you don’t ask and don’t tell. Simple.”

My husband could do his best to blend in and he is very pleasant and would not hurt a fly.

Therefore, by these standards, he should come in. My father also went through surgery and had no testes, should he have come in to the women’s?

All these conditions for access are for any male person. Why the fuck does any group of male people feel they can set the criteria for access to female single sex provisions?

The only reason is purely an emotional plea due to some male people having a subjective belief that has no basis in material reality wanting that belief to be treated as if it is materially real. When it isn’t