To be annoyed I had to watch GB News to see coverage of anti women protestors at Southwark

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

A mother, Miranda Newsom, had her gym membership suspended for a year after reporting an "unmistakably male" trans woman in the female changing room.

Why isn't this on the BBC? The reporter in the video is doing genuinely impressive investigative journalism, didn't we used to have the national broadcaster to do this sort of thing?

oh behave.

women who identify as men have nothing to do with this situation. It is a shame that some women reject womanhood but they are not a threat to males in the way that males who identify as women are to women but I know you already know that.

To be clear, it is not being trans that is the problem it is being male/ men that is the problem.

Males how ever they identify are a risk to women. Men who identify as trans are at least as much of a risk as any other man.

Safeguarding means we exclude ALL MEN whatever their gender identity.

It's not a trans problem, it's a man problem.

You think men only claim to be trans during criminal proceedings, really? So no trans woman (man) is capable of committing a crime because they are trans? Ok, we’ve hit peak nonsense I see.

How many women have had to the chance to observe how people behave and not how they look
prior to being attacked?

Waaay we’ve ticked the ‘if they want to attack you they’ll do it anyway’ on the bingo card. If a burglar wants to burgle your house (and it’s statistically unlikely you’ll be burgled in your lifetime btw), they will. Doesn’t stop you from locking your doors, getting a ring doorbell etc. It’s called safeguarding. That includes men who feel they are women. Their feelings are irrelevant in spaces that are for women. All the men in my life wouldn’t harm anyone, I don’t think they should be allowed in women’s spaces. That wouldn’t change if they suddenly preferred dressing in a regressive stereotypical way associated with the opposite way.

Why does it always come down to being attacked though? Why can’t women just get unchanged, use the loo whatever without a biological male being around, for privacy and dignity reasons?

Trans people have the same rights as everyone else. They don’t get to have additional ‘rights’ that are potentially harmful to women based on personality.

Exactly. Where’s the trans men screaming to get into men’s sports and changing rooms. The men don’t care as they know they are a. women (and therefore at the bottom of the pile like the rest of us) and b. dont pose as much of a risk to them. They don’t care.

Although it’s interesting how much more of the male and trans identified uk prison population is in for sexual assaults compared to the general male population. I believe it’s about 60% vs 20%….

It is. You beat me to that fact.

So you - a great big dude has never been assaulted by a man in a dress and therefore it doesn’t happen?

and - people who do do sexual assaults and are trans identified are actually “cis” men because of their appearance?

well well well you are a pillar of truth and logic I can see that.

A cast iron reason for making sure we record the actual sex as well as, if it differs from the sex / if they have one, the persons “gender identity”

surely all the people saying we shouldn’t record them both don’t have something to hide?

Yeah its not news that the BBC would show. Less to do with left or right, but the beeb will always try to avoid making a minority group look stupid, which for trans rights protesters just means letting them speak.

If you could be bothered to read, you'd have seen that I had said I know it could happen that we get a safeguarding referral when the offender is a trans woman. However, given that I've yet to come across it in my working life, and that there is a very significant problem of straight men abusing women (most commonly, their partners or family members) I think it's logical to focus the attention on those people.

By your logic, trans men should be in women's changing rooms. I don't think that would lead to women feeling safer. FWIW I think a better solution to your point around dignity would be that all changing rooms should have some cubicles so that people who wanted extra privacy, whether it's because they're trans, or are body conscious due to say, scarring, or having medical equipment, or whatever it might be, have that option. I don't think people trying to guess what is in someone else's pants (assuming a person doesn't walk in and announce they're trans) is a sensible solution. No one on Mumsnet has ever explained how they would even enforce such a thing.

This isn't just about about womens safety- it's about dignity and privacy away from the male gaze. This is why women fought for the right to have single sex spaces.
The Supreme Court ruling made this clear.

Why should people be able to use facilities aligned with gender instead of sex? - this is meaningless as single sex spaces then cease to be single sex spaces; if trans identifying men enter women's spaces or trans identifying women use men's spaces they become mixed sex spaces! And it isn't just about toilets. It applies to changing rooms- I don't want to get undressed in the presence of men, cubicles or not. And we know there have been many instances of men putting cameras under cubicle doors. We also know that cubicles that have no gaps at the bottom or top are better for safety reasons (I'd @ MN's expert in this area but she's in demand- you can be alerted if the occupant is ill/ collapsed) but there's the risk of voyeurism.

Just because other women 'don't mind' then that doesn't mean they can give away consent for the rest of us. Many women cannot be in mixed spaces for different reasons. Many women have suffered assault/sexual assault and they carry that trauma into the single sex space with them. Except, if they can never be quite sure who will be in there, they might not go in at all.

Trans identifying men retain patterns of offending the same as men who don't identify as trans-this is well documented.

I am astounded that people cannot see the implications of allowing men to enter such spaces just because they identify as women. What does that even mean when you break it down? Repeating "trans women are women" like some folk in the video quoted, etc doesn't make it so.
And if it is a matter of 'allow me in cos I say I'm a woman" then why shouldn't 6 foot 6 Mike who also says he's a woman, be allowed to enter women's spaces? It's only fair.
After all if you say they're going to stare at, assault, us anyway.......

There are men who don't want women in their single sex spaces too and I'd expect that to be respected too.

If the suffragettes popped back to Earth, I bet they'd wonder why the bloody hell they bothered

That was a clever little shift from the OP's actual concern, which is that it make the news full-stop, to your reworking of this as being that it make "headline news" - neatly done!

You need that shift, really, or your argument doesn't hold up.

I just scrolled an inch down the current BBC front page to find, just a very few news items into the page:

"Police wear fancy dress in Rio carnival phone theft sting" and an article on Nigella in TGBBO.

I think it's hard to argue that yet another manifestation of what increasing numbers think represents ongoing, systemic discrimination against women in the UK - something that is frequently headline news (eg. Sandie Peggie and the Good Law Project challenge, in recent weeks) - shouldn't outweigh such gems as, er (and I quote): "The undercover officers donned masks depicting Captain America, Batman and Jason Voorhees from Friday the 13th, among others".

I mean, someone could try to argue that? But I suspect they wouldn't want to.

Isolated incident? Tell that to the Darlington nurses, to Sandie Peggy and the Sheffield nurses who were also expected to change with MEN. Or to your or a friend’s teenage daughter when it happens to her.

No, I’d you’d bother reading we should be focussing on men, not ‘othering’. These include the ones who seem nice but turn out not to be, the horrible ones, the ones who think they are women ones. You know the ones we can tell who is who 🙄.

They aren’t two separate entities - trans women and cis men, they are just men, and are capable of causing harm to women, even the ones who don’t, women still have a right to spaces away from the nicest men in nice land. I’ve met a nice trans woman colleague, I’ve met one customer who was a horrible sex offender calling me insults I’ve never been called by a woman funnily enough.

I’ll take my chances with a trans man any day of the week, up close and personal and once they’ve opened their mouth it’s clear they are female.

I see an other bingo, bringing up their private parts. Why is it always trans allies that bring genitals into it? So strange. It’s like you’re ticking points off the TRA handbook. Humans have been able to correctly sex other humans from the beginning of time, despite ‘costume’. I’ve never had to look at my boyfriend’s willies prior to getting together with them, and my current partner has long hair.

How about everyone just sticks to the changing room of their sex, which can’t be changed, and if trans women aren’t comfortable then campaign for men to be more accepting of gender non-conforming men in their spaces. I’ve yet to meet a man that would have a problem with a trans women in their spaces though. Or campaign for their own space, like women had to do.

They feature plenty of drag queen stories though!

And tbf it would suit the local London news. But the BBC never cover anything pro gender critical unless they absolutely have to.

Quite.

They don’t need to be enforced. Why do you think they can’t be expected to follow the same rules as other men?

I don’t know who these posters are but I would bet my house they aren’t British 30+ women

Oh I don’t know, there are a lot of sheltered bubble dwellers who coddle these men due to internalised misogyny. If a “trans woman” says they feel bad because they aren’t being valiadated as women, that’s terrible, if it’s a woman who needs a female only space for her privacy and dignity, who gives a fuck.

I think that Mumsnet should ban all variations of the phrase "check what's in their pants". I'm convinced it's only said by perverts that love the idea

I know it sounds awful to say, but it just wasn't a big enough story for the big media outlets to send reporters out to, if they were even aware of it happening. That's not to say that woman's rights/single sex spaces etc aren't considered newsworthy, just that the specific story was not national news and the local branch (again, if they were aware of it) likely wouldn't have had the budget.

There's also the issue that the actual facts of the story are that she wasn't banned for 'identifying a trans person in the women's changing rooms', she was banned for her behavior before, during and after it. The leisure center gave the 'we don't discuss member issues' response and 'didn't answer the local papers's questions, and given that the media who did cover it don't have a quote from the trans person, presumably they don't want to speak or haven't been found, which makes balance an issue for the Beeb. The protest was tiny. There just wasn't enough to it.

GB News is a commercial entity before it's a news outlet though. A friend of mine used to freelance on production in their news room, apparently it's insane. Their editorial policy is led by how likely something is to be watched on TV and shared on social media. This is unfortunately the exact kind of story that they know will have a good chunk of their viewership either frothing with rage or howling with laughter, and most importantly, sharing on socials. It's presented, shot and edited specifically for social engagement use.

Look at how the video itself is presented: "GET AWAY from me - Trans activists fume at chaotic protest after failing to answer simple questions" - That headline doesn't tell me anything about the actual story, or women's rights/safety. It's not about that, it's about making trans activists look stupid. A professional, researched and prepared presenter/journalist sticking a mic and a rolling camera into the faces of people (some of whom clearly didn't want to talk to her) and putting them on the spot with very deliberately phrased quick fire questions isn't investigative journalism, it's 'gotcha' journalism designed to make the subject look thick.

And it worked! 180,000 people watched that video which made them about $5,000 from YouTube plus whatever they got from the ads plastered all over it.

But yeah, that's why it's on GB News not the Beeb. Now if it was a national chain of gyms that had, for example, issued a policy banning people from complaining about men entering women's changing rooms as a result of that incident, that might have been picked up by the national press. Of if the protest at the leisure center had attracted a bigger crowd.

I'm sure the BBC would have covered the story had it been a man claiming to be a woman who had had his membership suspended from a gym for accessing the female changing rooms.

I also think it's not very difficult at all to make trans activists look stupid, so while I do kind of agree with the point above about gotcha journalism, even when trans activists have been prepared and/or interviewed in what you could call neutral terms, they've shown themselves up, every single time.

Because you have a minority niche interest.
Because GBNews specialises in outrage news: the point is to get their viewers angry.
That's what you want so you found it.

BBC London News is here. There are literally hundreds of niche London interest stories they aren't featuring. Imho all the stories they are carrying will be of greater interest to London readers than OP's hobby interest.