BBC presenter launches new trans visibility campaign

[IwantToRetire]

Dr Ronx Ikharia’s ‘Safe With Me’ initiative invites allies to wear a yellow badge with bold black text, signalling to trans+ individuals that they are safe to approach, especially when using public toilets or navigating other gendered spaces.

Launched by Dr Ronx – a Black, non-binary, transmasculine emergency doctor and BBC presenter – the campaign responds to the Suprememe Court's judgment that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act refers strictly to biological sex, a decision that campaigners say has heightened fear within trans+ communities.

Dr Ronx said: “I have often been kicked out of toilets because people don’t know where to place me. But when I’m with someone, it happens less.

“This badge is about making allyship visible. It’s non-confrontational. It’s a signal to a trans+ person that they can come up to you and feel safe doing so.”

Dr Ronx is best known for presenting on the BBC’s Operation Ouch! and The Unshockable Dr Ronx, where they combine medical expertise with youth-focused storytelling.

Off-screen, the Hackney-native works on the frontline at Homerton Hospital while strongly advocating for inclusive healthcare and increasing representation for marginalised young people.

Continues at https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/23072025-bbc-presenter-launches-new-trans-visibility-campaign

Thanks for explanation

I thought this seemed familiar and I was probably reminded of this thread

You are safe with me | Mumsnet https://share.google/IplO996KhIc9sOpoW

Michael Foran has written a piece about why the test devised by the SC must lead to the same 'sex means sex' conclusion when applied to the 1992 regulations, but I think the TRAs are going to put up a fight!

https://knowingius.org/p/are-trans-inclusive-policies-lawful

Elsewhere, I have argued as follows:

The SSEs of the EA do not apply to the Workplace Regulations.

It is not necessary to apply the GRA to the WR, in order to permit employers to operate 'trans-friendly' toilets and changing rooms.

The WR mandate separate provision 'for' men and women. As of Croft v Royal Mail, employers had a discretion, to allow certain men to use the women's facilities (despite still being legally male).

The WR do have safety and privacy objectives, employers are required to protect employees from a hostile and degrading environment, and mixed-sex provision arguably does discriminate against the more vulnerable sex.

If the employers fall down on any of the above, they could be said to be outwith the requirements of the WR and therefore not protected by the exemption at paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 23 of Equality Act 2010 (which exempts employers from liability where they do anything “in pursuance of an enactment”). But that conversation has not yet happened.

I can even, off the top of my head, think of a colourable case for making a distinction between the WR and the SSEs of the EA, which is that employers, unlike service providers or clubs, have access to lots of information about employees and can decide whether they have made 'enough effort' to justify allowing them to use opposite-sex toilets (following Croft v Royal Mail).

I am of course playing devil's advocate, but there's a lot of advice out there right now suggesting that employers can carry on as before. And the advice to the contrary (eg from Sex Matters) doesn't quite spell out how the law can be made to hang together. It's not over.

From memory Croft v Royal Mail was a single unit not a toilet block?
Plus has a very small number of women working at the location.

But as business have to provide delivery drivers access the know all users as they are staff is not a fix all.

But schools will have issues if teachers opt to hand out badges and allow mixed sex blocks.

BBC bosses have the Supreme Court ruling. They know no BBC presenter must remain employed, when publicly breaking the law. No, not even an employee with one or more of the characteristics which make BBC bosses, and the (also disposable) army of HR employees 'take the knee', and/or fawn, squirm and grovel excitedly.

I've just sat and watched the two episodes of the BBC documentary "Inside the Cult of the Jesus Army" on iplayer which I believe is being broadcast on BBC2 this evening.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002fxr8/inside-the-cult-of-the-jesus-army-series-1-episode-1

The parallels and the experiences of those involved are really striking. It gives you a fairly good idea of what might happen in the future.

I recommend it to everyone - the way those in the church itself didn't recognise safeguarding and how the organisation became a magnet for abusers is particularly revealing and why I mention it in the context of this thread about (irony) a BBC presenter.

I know the BBC gets a hard time here, but it ALSO does stuff like this, which others won't touch because its a difficult subject. (Theres quite a lot of archive footage and it appears C4, in particular, did documentaries into the group at the time)

The BBC successfully manages to come up with dangerous claptrap whilst successfully producing stuff which helps to raise some pretty difficult questions for itself and its inability to spot history repeating and to adopt some fairly basic levels of safeguarding...

It strike me that their training is totally flawed - so busy with the trans stuff they've completely neglected safeguarding and have never thought that all training itself should be reviewed in the context of whether it safeguards all groups...

Thanks again. Appreciate you taking the time to explain. And i guess this explains why Peggie tribunal is going ahead. Let's hope the decision gives clarity