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

[BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp]

https://genderblog.net/bbc-gender-apology-row/

From Nick Wallis' Genderblog:

On 6 August 2026, BBC Three Counties local radio station, which covers Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, ran a half hour current affairs chat on the Jonathan Vernon-Smith Show. The midday item was posed as a question: “Do you think it’s right to tell transgender people which toilet to use?”

The first contributor put on air to talk about that question were Robin Moira White, a male barrister who claims to be a woman. Robin advocates for men to be able to use women’s toilets and does so himself. The next guest was Nora Padilla, a full-time policy officer at the campaign group TransActual, which also advocates for men to be able to use women’s toilets. Then we heard from “Michelle” from Watford. Like Robin, Michelle is a man who claims to be a woman and – surprise surprise – advocates for male use of female facilities....
[my bold]

And the story goes on. And gets more and more damning for the BBC. The useless, ridiculously activist, taxpayer-supported BBC... Still.

Agreed. That would appear to read pretty much as 'if you don't gratify me as I demand then I'm entitled to feel free to harm you'. Which is a new version of the grim 'If you didn't annoy me I wouldn't have to hurt you'.

Because there are women who cannot use mixed sex facilities. When a man walks in, some women are distressed and humiliated and others have to flee. In distress and fear because they have inner lives and needs and intersectionalities that apparently men neither know about or value. How the man feels internally or needs makes zero difference to this.

Women's spaces are there for women. Use the mixed sex space, that's what it's there for. Unless you have a binary sex based belief that being a man means you have a superior claim to a space, and greater importance than any woman you affect.

Plus there is the demand that female people react in a way that could mean they are physically attacked, or suffer any negative consequences at all, before apparently enough female people might have shown that a male person doesn't 'pass' as they believe they do just because they had some treatments.

The very expectation that a potential victim will act in non-compliance when that victim fears acting in non-compliance before enough reaction has been shown for women saying 'we know you are not female' to be considered to have greater understanding of female perception than a male person has, is abusive, gaslighting and misogynistic. It really is an abuser's charter.

'Well, none of you reacted when you saw me in person therefore no harm was done....'. It fits with the access by deception narrative.

But apparently, we are the wrong type of female people to have our female opinion considered as important....

I don’t care for sports

Yes. I noted that.

It is a statement saying ‘Me! Me! Me! Me!’ I will only take what I want for the issues where ‘I’ want to access, otherwise you female people can have your single sex provision!

The entitlement is off the scales.

Oh I’m sorry. Did you miss where I said I didn’t think it would be appropriate for me to play in women’s sport?

But then if it’s inappropriate for you to play on women’s sport, by dint of not being a woman, surely it is inappropriate for you to access any women’s sport only spaces.

To be fair, I think it was that bit that made us all home in on the bit about not caring. It felt strange to say it's not appropriate - which would usually be the end of the story - yet then to add another reason on top of that. It gives the clear impression that it not being appropriate is contingent on how much it matters to you.

I kind of see how it looks like that. Just to be clear, I don’t think it would be appropriate no matter how much I care about sport. I was clumsily trying to say I’m not sporty as well

And why would that be?

TIMs do seem to be the most selfish people on the planet. Quite why 51% of the population has to bend over for the less than 1% who want to be them is beyond me.

This is the fail in logic and the ‘me, me, me, me!’ selectiveness.

It is as clear as a beacon.

If it is of no direct benefit to the male
person expressing the opinion, it is ok for female people to have that single sex provision. Otherwise… it is back to access by ignoring/ dismissing lack of consent of female people.

If it is not appropriate for a male person to compete in female sport as a female competitor, it is not appropriate for a male person to use any other female single sex provisions. The reason for safeguarding principles being needed for sport is the same for all other female single sex provision.

Safety due to male people retaining testosterone derived advantages that have now been shown to exist from childhood impacts not just sport but every other provision a male person accesses.

Of course, the harms of male people accessing any female single sex provision is not limited to physical harm. And those other harms are relevant to sport and the other provisions as well.

The reasons why it is not appropriate in sport are exactly the same reasons as to why it isn't appropriate anywhere else.

HTH.

Or what @Helleofabore said more eloquently than I did.

It always feels like the terra nullis thing.

Anything women have is not being useful to men, it's just brown field, so men using it is obviously an improvement.

Anything women feel or their inner selves and identities and challenges and traumas - not affecting anyone male so obviously not anything that matters like a distressed man does with all his important inner feelings and needs.

Its no wonder women get a bit ratty about it really. And it all proves, repeatedly why women need the law, that exists, as the SCJ have confirmed.

Because without the law, men crack on seeing themselves in a binary sex based hierarchy, in which one of their expressions of that sex based hierarchy is having the power to force women to supposedly pretend the sex part doesn't exist while bowing to it and enabling men at their own expense, access, equality and needs. Especially less privileged women.

I'm bored to bloody death with the whole 'play along with this game' bit, I really am. Any patience I had is gone.

No, I've got no head pats available for not interfering with women's sports (especially since sports aren't of interest).

I wouldn’t take part in women’s sports because it doesn’t feel appropriate and I don’t care for sports

It doesn’t matter a whit to you because you don’t like sports anyway. Nothing about you playacting as a woman is appropriate, but hey ho.

People can disagree, but they would still be wrong. Identifying as a woman and modifying external appearance to approximate to that of a woman doesn't actually make someone a woman, because the only thing needed to be a woman is to be born in a female body and survive to adulthood.

Yep, I don't do it because it wouldn't be appropriate but I don't give a shit so I'll give you that thing to yourselves is not a great look, is it.

If you liked sports, I'd bet a pound to a penny you'd be barging right in.

As I’ve explained, I didn’t mean it like that. But who cares about accuracy when you have a great quote, right?

And didn't transition until early 20s, so socialised as male from birth and went through male puberty.

Well you said it and I thought we were supposed to take you at face value and not see the truth underneath....

I am very impressed by the logical arguments on this thread. Well done, MNers!

How is that list coming on?

Ready to educate us with all those other changes that oestrogen hormone in female quantities makes to a male body?

Male breast development that resembles female breast development but is not female breast development. ✔

Soft skin ✔

A penis that doesn't taste or smell like a penis when testosterone is not replaced by estrogen ✔

Fat redistributed around the body if that male person decides to not undergo fitness training ✔

What else? anything??

And

How do these changes make a male person a female person?

At this point, it seems that this is pretty much the list. And that it is clear that some male people believe that these changes are ‘enough’ to claim to be female. If I remember, we have had a few other male people claim that there are more changes than we acknowledge yet can never produce a list. All while never once understanding how fucking offensive it is to female people, to claim that male acquisition of any of the above makes any male person ‘female’. It is Deja va! A repeat of some months ago.

Another male redefines the meaning of ‘female’ to suit themselves. But mainly it focuses on acquisition of development of male breasts to resemble female breasts.

(just a reminder that female breast development means the development of an interactive feeding system for infants that male people can simply never achieve. )