In fairness to the BBC, I think they have strict rules about any reporting that addresses the organisation itself and are quite good about preserving the correct separation between the reporter and whatever portion of the BBC is being reprted on. So I think it is perfectly reasonable and correct for the article to say that the BBC had been approached for comment.
Although parts of the article are uncomfortable to read (because they create the fear that anyone not already familiar with the debate will get too negative an impression of Glinner), I don't think that this is a 'hit job' of any sort. The BBC isn't anything like as biased in the reporting of this issue as, say, the guardian. It has been guilty of naivety on the whole, rather than outright tribalism.
I think the BBC is just doing its usual thing of practicing a rather dogmatic version of balance. Ultimately, this will help, not hinder, the exposure of all the awful errors and distortions in recent conceptualisations of trans rights, because it leaves less scope for those who will want to accuse responsible journalists of being transphobic.
Pretty much any news story, taken as a standalone, creates some possibility that readers will judge one protagonist or another unfairly. But ordinary readers are generally a little bit better at reserving judgement than we sometimes fear them to be.