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?

Men dressed as women are not discrete.

Not ever.

Because they are plainly men in dresses. They don't have to get their penis out to become a perceived or actual threat. They just have to be there.

If only GB News felt it newsworthy - why are you singling out the BBC when it seems most news outlets felt it not worth reporting on.

The reason it gets so much attention is because it's happening everywhere. And women and feminists are understandably outraged. Would you have been upset at the 'constant attention' that voting was getting if you lived in the suffragette era?

And what is with the constant whataboutery in order to deflect from this topic? Like we cannot speak about womens hard won rights to single sex spaces if we don't also at the same time speak about the gender pay gap and every other arbitrary thing you have on your list before we are justified to talk about this? This affects every woman and girl because we all need public toilets. It affects every single one of us, especially us rape survivors. I think it's far more important than anything you listed. WHY do I need to talk about Farage's plans before I am allowed to talk about this? You just don't want it talked about at all, do you? That is why the deflection and whataboutery.

Anyone with a penis is a threat to you. Presumably then you don't go to a gym, because you wouldn't be able to walk down the street, through the reception or use the facility once you're there, because there will be penis owners in all of these places?

Do you have any evidence for these statistics (that aren't cartoons?)

UK and US:

Canada and New Zealand:

Because they are the national broadcaster that used to investigate things, but don't any more.

Reasons why females are at more risk in a changing room than in the street.

Every time you type anything you make your arguments look worse. Thats why these discussions are so enlightening. Keep it up. You're doing the work for us.

• State of undress: In a changing room you are partially or fully naked, which massively increases vulnerability and the potential harm from staring, comments, exposure, or physical contact. On the street you are clothed.
• Privacy expectation: A changing room is explicitly a private, intimate space. Breaching that boundary is itself a harm and changes behaviour. A street is public by default.
• Constrained environment: Changing rooms have cubicles, corners, narrow aisles, lockers and blind spots. It is easier to trap, corner, or block someone. Streets usually have multiple exits and open sightlines.
• Lower visibility and oversight: Fewer witnesses, less CCTV (often none inside), and less staff presence. In public areas, there are more bystanders, more cameras, and more natural surveillance.
• People are distracted: You are changing, handling bags, towels, keys, kids, shaving, showering, period products. That reduces situational awareness compared with walking down a street.
• Reduced ability to respond quickly: You may be barefoot, wet, carrying things, or mid-change. You cannot move fast, run, or defend yourself as easily as when you are dressed and mobile.
• Higher leverage for coercion: In an intimate space, embarrassment and shame are powerful tools. Someone can exploit “don’t make a scene” pressure more effectively than in a public reception area.
• Greater opportunity for voyeurism and recording: Phones, mirrors, gaps, and the simple fact of nudity make spying and image capture far more damaging and more tempting. The street does not present the same exposure.
• Higher impact of a single incident: Being stared at on the street is unpleasant; being stared at while undressed is violating. The magnitude of harm is different.
• Particular risk for girls: Teenagers are especially vulnerable in changing contexts (body insecurity, fear of reporting, power imbalances). The same male presence in a corridor is not equivalent.
• Modesty and religious needs: For some women and girls, being seen unclothed has severe personal or cultural consequences. Those harms are specific to changing spaces.
• Not “all men are a threat”, it is about setting and risk management: Society routinely restricts who can enter intimate spaces (women’s refuges, toilets, changing rooms) because the combination of privacy + nudity + low oversight increases risk. That logic does not apply to mixed public areas like streets or gym reception.

But lots of mainstream outlets have deemed this unnewsworthy.

It seems that this is just your personal issue with the BBC. I could understand your angst if they were the only news outlet NOT covering this. But it seems all the news outlets, except GB news considers this unnewsworthy.

I think you just got evidence that trans identifying males are actually more likely to sexually assault someone than a "cis" man.

Tell us again why these males should be allowed in female changing rooms?

Am I upset the BBC has hung 51% of the population out to dry? Yes. Because they are the national broadcaster, thats what they are there for.

@SingleSexSpacesInSchools that you pretend that infographics like that are evidence you're just showing how ridiculous your argument is. If you genuinely believe it, it shows how misinformed you are.

I don't have the time or inclination to answer you points one by one, but to show how weak your points are, one example you give is religious modesty. If you truly care for religious modesty you'll know that Muslim women (if following this tradition) can't show their body from the stomach to the knee to another unrelated woman (unless out of necessity eg medical reasons) So I presume as someone so concerned about other women's religious needs, you have avoided going into any changing rooms that muslim women may use, or campaigned for them to always have access to cubicles. Because in that instance, you're the problem and you shouldn't be there.

They are GRAPHS. Not 'cartoons'. Do you even know what cartoons are? And the sources for these graphs are at the top of them. They are actual government departmental data.

So now what's your excuse?

Picking one of a dozen examples I give, ignoring the others and not doing a competent job of attacking that one point - again - makes you look foolish

You do the work for us. Operation let them speak is a gift that keeps on giving.

No one forces you to watch the opinion channel called GB News. Calling it a news channel is misusing the language.

Well the event was definitely news, and it's not covered elsewhere, my actual point, so.... what exactly is your point other than sneering?

Possibly. That poster's excuse is so pitiful, you'd think they'd be embarrassed at calling a graph a cartoon. I would have more respect for them if they just admitted that they weren't genuine when they asked for evidence. It's obvious they hoped I wouldn't give it and had no interest in seeing any evidence. The ready made excuse of a cartoon (without even looking and seeing it is graphs and data) says this. Their mind was already shut and made up. No evidence was wanted.

I mean, I could create an AI infographic in two minutes which 'proves' that Terfs care about women's rights. It would prove exactly the sum of FA, as your 'evidence' does.

And in terms of not responding to everything you post: it's not worth my time, and I'm on a break from work. Not all of us have all day to argue on the internet.

I mean, except it has DEPARTMENTAL DATA. And in them most have actual URLS to the actual source.

You can't answer that one.

Just admit you were not genuine in your quest for the evidence. It's that transparent.

Edited to add that I don't know what your last quite truculent paragraph refers to, I didn't ask you to reply to every post I made.

Presumably then you don't go to a gym, because you wouldn't be able to walk down the street, through the reception or use the facility once you're there, because there will be penis owners in all of these places?

In case it helps, Tall, the misunderstanding may have come from your words above. It does suggest a certain emotional immaturity, given the absurdity of the argument and sheer disrespect it shows to women reading who have experienced sexual assault.

I could actually see that the post's style may have led some posters to think cartoons are the right level of response.

As it happens, though, what you seem to think are cartoons are actually infographics, an increasingly well-recognised way of communicating important information to the public favoured by multiple organisations eg. the NHS, charities and businesses.

Honestly, this site brings out an acerbity and cynicism I didn't know I had. I'm finding I've less patience by the day for cartoonish strawmen like the italics above, and am finding it harder and harder to understand how anyone posting such things could feel it shows them and their arguments in a good light.

ETA Just checked to see if the infographics have sources, and they do, which I'd imagine (I know in several cases of those posted, being familiar with the numbers) will themselves lead an invested right right back to the original sources. I don't like those which don't have any sources - totally agree with Tall to be wary of such - but those which do can serve a very useful purpose.

Why are you obsessed with mentioning genitals?!