Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

PART 2 ➡️ Last week, BBC Three Counties devoted an hour-long segment to the new EHRC Code on single-sex spaces. It featured three men talking for around 30 minutes - but no female guest to explain why women's single-sex spaces matter. We've since learned that a suitable organisation was...

JournalismSEEN's profile picture

SEEN in Journalism

23,896 subscribers

85,783 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

EducationNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Yesterday BBC Three Counties devoted almost 30 minutes of airtime to three male contributors - for a discussion about whether men who identify as women should use female toilets. Presenter Jonathan Vernon-Smith spoke to: 1. Robin Moira White - a male barrister who identifies as a woman (approx 12 mins) 2. Nora Padilla - policy manager at trans-rights campaign group TransActual (approx 5 mins) 3. “Michelle” from Watford - a male who identifies as a woman (approx 11 mins) Vernon-Smith did offer some challenge - reading out messages supporting single-sex toilets and inviting women who objected to men in their single sex spaces to call in. But why wasn’t a gender-critical guest invited onto the show in the first place? And why did the discussion seem to centre around personal preference - rather than matters of law? The most extraordinary section was the lengthy interview with a man called “Michelle” from Watford (we’ve included the clip here), who - as well as saying he does use women’s toilets - made the following statements: “All I want to do is […] wash hands, check the lipstick and come out.” “I usually get some nice compliments about the outfit and accessories I’m wearing.” “We don’t want to be challenged every time we go to powder our nose.” “Why do you think we want to be women? Because we love and respect everything feminine.” These comments - which clearly stereotype womanhood - went largely unchallenged. And when Michelle said women didn’t mind sharing toilets with him, Vernon-Smith didn’t ask the obvious question: might they object, but feel too afraid to say? Michelle also volunteered that he had not “fully transitioned”. Yet Vernon-Smith did not explore why a male who retains his male anatomy believes he should use facilities where women are attending to intimate bodily needs. Almost 30 minutes for three male contributors to discuss women’s toilets - but no female guest booked to explain why single-sex spaces matter. That’s the editorial choice worth examining.
10:55

Yesterday BBC Three Counties devoted almost 30 minutes of airtime to three male contributors - for a discussion about whether men who identify as women should use female toilets. Presenter Jonathan Vernon-Smith spoke to: 1. Robin Moira White - a male barrister who identifies as a woman (approx 12 mins) 2. Nora Padilla - policy manager at trans-rights campaign group TransActual (approx 5 mins) 3. “Michelle” from Watford - a male who identifies as a woman (approx 11 mins) Vernon-Smith did offer some challenge - reading out messages supporting single-sex toilets and inviting women who objected to men in their single sex spaces to call in. But why wasn’t a gender-critical guest invited onto the show in the first place? And why did the discussion seem to centre around personal preference - rather than matters of law? The most extraordinary section was the lengthy interview with a man called “Michelle” from Watford (we’ve included the clip here), who - as well as saying he does use women’s toilets - made the following statements: “All I want to do is […] wash hands, check the lipstick and come out.” “I usually get some nice compliments about the outfit and accessories I’m wearing.” “We don’t want to be challenged every time we go to powder our nose.” “Why do you think we want to be women? Because we love and respect everything feminine.” These comments - which clearly stereotype womanhood - went largely unchallenged. And when Michelle said women didn’t mind sharing toilets with him, Vernon-Smith didn’t ask the obvious question: might they object, but feel too afraid to say? Michelle also volunteered that he had not “fully transitioned”. Yet Vernon-Smith did not explore why a male who retains his male anatomy believes he should use facilities where women are attending to intimate bodily needs. Almost 30 minutes for three male contributors to discuss women’s toilets - but no female guest booked to explain why single-sex spaces matter. That’s the editorial choice worth examining.

SEEN in Journalism

172,574 views • 2 months ago

'I will never be safe in a man's toilet', says Isabella who is a trans woman. Thousands of single-sex spaces in the UK, like changing rooms and toilets, should be used based on biological sex, according to new guidelines that come into place today from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The guidance says trans people should instead be offered a separate mixed-sex space. It follows a Supreme Court ruling last year that the definition of sex for the purposes of the Equality Act means biological sex - the sex of a person at birth, not the gender you identify with. While gender critical organisations welcome clarification on the law', many in the trans community and LGBTQ+ organisations feel the guidelines leave them more open to discrimination. #Trans #LGBTQ #Toilet #ChangingRoom #C4News #Channel4News
2:19

'I will never be safe in a man's toilet', says Isabella who is a trans woman. Thousands of single-sex spaces in the UK, like changing rooms and toilets, should be used based on biological sex, according to new guidelines that come into place today from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The guidance says trans people should instead be offered a separate mixed-sex space. It follows a Supreme Court ruling last year that the definition of sex for the purposes of the Equality Act means biological sex - the sex of a person at birth, not the gender you identify with. While gender critical organisations welcome clarification on the law', many in the trans community and LGBTQ+ organisations feel the guidelines leave them more open to discrimination. #Trans #LGBTQ #Toilet #ChangingRoom #C4News #Channel4News

Channel 4 News

1,777,748 views • 2 months ago

🤨 Yvette Cooper is already muddying the waters on the new EHRC statutory code of practice that requires single-sex spaces to be based on biological sex. The code has just come into force. It implements the 2025 Supreme Court ruling that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex. Single-sex spaces, wards, toilets and changing rooms are for the sex recorded at birth. Full stop. Stig Abell put the simplest possible question to the Health Secretary on Times Radio: “Let’s be absolutely clear about this, single sex ward, someone who identifies as a woman but was born a man would have to go to a male side of the ward rather than a female side of the ward?” Her reply: “The guidance will be set out shortly to make sure there maybe people who will need additional provision or additional arrangements made. It’s very clear where there is single sex arrangements in place it needs to be done on the basis of biological sex.” “Additional provision.” “Additional arrangements.” This is the classic fudge. The law is clear. The code is clear. Biological sex is the criterion. Yet the moment the question becomes concrete, a male patient on a female ward, the language softens into process, guidance, special cases and future arrangements. We have seen this movie before. Clarity on paper, then endless carve-outs, risk assessments, “individual circumstances” and institutional reluctance to enforce the actual rule. Women end up sharing intimate spaces with males while officials congratulate themselves on “balancing rights”. It should be simple. If a service is single-sex, it is for that sex. People who do not belong to that sex use the opposite-sex facilities. No endless reinvention of the wheel. Instead we get the same tired pattern: pander to a tiny minority, amplify the loudest and angriest voices within it, and treat women’s privacy, safety and dignity as negotiable. The overwhelming majority of the public, and the plain wording of the law, are treated as the awkward obstacle rather than the starting point. Cooper says the law is clear. Then she immediately starts talking as if it isn’t. That is how these things get unpicked in practice. Women have every right to be sceptical.
0:29

🤨 Yvette Cooper is already muddying the waters on the new EHRC statutory code of practice that requires single-sex spaces to be based on biological sex. The code has just come into force. It implements the 2025 Supreme Court ruling that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex. Single-sex spaces, wards, toilets and changing rooms are for the sex recorded at birth. Full stop. Stig Abell put the simplest possible question to the Health Secretary on Times Radio: “Let’s be absolutely clear about this, single sex ward, someone who identifies as a woman but was born a man would have to go to a male side of the ward rather than a female side of the ward?” Her reply: “The guidance will be set out shortly to make sure there maybe people who will need additional provision or additional arrangements made. It’s very clear where there is single sex arrangements in place it needs to be done on the basis of biological sex.” “Additional provision.” “Additional arrangements.” This is the classic fudge. The law is clear. The code is clear. Biological sex is the criterion. Yet the moment the question becomes concrete, a male patient on a female ward, the language softens into process, guidance, special cases and future arrangements. We have seen this movie before. Clarity on paper, then endless carve-outs, risk assessments, “individual circumstances” and institutional reluctance to enforce the actual rule. Women end up sharing intimate spaces with males while officials congratulate themselves on “balancing rights”. It should be simple. If a service is single-sex, it is for that sex. People who do not belong to that sex use the opposite-sex facilities. No endless reinvention of the wheel. Instead we get the same tired pattern: pander to a tiny minority, amplify the loudest and angriest voices within it, and treat women’s privacy, safety and dignity as negotiable. The overwhelming majority of the public, and the plain wording of the law, are treated as the awkward obstacle rather than the starting point. Cooper says the law is clear. Then she immediately starts talking as if it isn’t. That is how these things get unpicked in practice. Women have every right to be sceptical.

J Stewart

18,844 views • 2 months ago

This is the state of society today. A man thinks he has the right to access female-only spaces because his feelings were hurt by people not believing he is a woman. Is that not the object of the game? It is not a woman's burden that you have chosen to medicalise yourself, and it is not up to them to act as your human shield. Just stop. I had to edit out the ending of this video because a minor was on camera, and I do not allow that. I said: "I appreciate that, but women shouldn't have to feel uncomfortable for you to feel comfortable. If they continue to challenge you, advise them that you are male or speak to a member of staff." To see the full protest video, I have posted it on my Substack below. If you are interested in supporting me attending these protest please go to the link in the bio or subscribe to the substack.
1:08

This is the state of society today. A man thinks he has the right to access female-only spaces because his feelings were hurt by people not believing he is a woman. Is that not the object of the game? It is not a woman's burden that you have chosen to medicalise yourself, and it is not up to them to act as your human shield. Just stop. I had to edit out the ending of this video because a minor was on camera, and I do not allow that. I said: "I appreciate that, but women shouldn't have to feel uncomfortable for you to feel comfortable. If they continue to challenge you, advise them that you are male or speak to a member of staff." To see the full protest video, I have posted it on my Substack below. If you are interested in supporting me attending these protest please go to the link in the bio or subscribe to the substack.

MichaelDPUK 💜🦎

12,815 views • 3 months ago

"Tristan identifies as a trans woman. Her preferred pronouns are she/her." These are the words of BBC Radio Ulster presenter Chris Buckler during today's interview with Fiona McAnena from Sex Matters. About a male guest. They were discussing his recent interview with Tristan Morrow - a young man who left the Orange Order and now identifies as a trans woman. SEEN in Journalism criticised that interview for: - Inaccuracy: using female pronouns for a man - Failing to challenge contested ideological claims - Not mentioning women once - despite covering disputes over women's sex-based spaces We've now had the chance to listen back to today's interview with Fiona (McAnena). While it was encouraging to hear a gender-critical woman given similar airtime, the two interviews could hardly have been more different. Morrow was largely allowed to tell his personal story uninterrupted and with relatively little challenge. McAnena faced repeated interruptions and hostile questioning, much of it relating to the recent controversy over the cancellation of a Women's Rights Network event at the Belfast arts festival Féile an Phobail. Among the questions Buckler put to her - some more than once - were: - Do you accept that people born male should be allowed to live as women? - Do you object to referring to Tristan Morrow as "she"? - How does using female pronouns for trans women impact your rights? - Do you believe trans people have a right to exist? - Do you accept there are adults who feel they are in the wrong body? - Would you welcome a trans person to your event ? McAnena did an admirable job of steering the conversation back to women's rights. Buckler repeatedly returned it to transgender identity. Buckler also made several references to SEEN in Journalism's criticism of his interview with Morrow, but appeared to misunderstand the substance of our argument. We did not say he should have included a female voice to "push back" on Morrow. We said he never mentioned women or women's rights once during a 21-minute interview about a dispute rooted in women's sex-based spaces. That is a different point entirely. We also raised concerns about inaccurate language - using female pronouns to describe a male guest. Rather than engaging with those concerns, Buckler appeared to double down - at one point, appearing to rebuke McAnena for referring to Morrow as "he". But our criticism wasn't about politeness. It was about accuracy. A principle the BBC should hold in the highest regard. At one point, Buckler said he wasn't speaking from either side. Yet across these two interviews, listeners learnt far more about identifying as trans than they did about why women defend sex-based rights. Good journalism should help audiences understand competing perspectives, not steer them towards one.
21:00

"Tristan identifies as a trans woman. Her preferred pronouns are she/her." These are the words of BBC Radio Ulster presenter Chris Buckler during today's interview with Fiona McAnena from Sex Matters. About a male guest. They were discussing his recent interview with Tristan Morrow - a young man who left the Orange Order and now identifies as a trans woman. SEEN in Journalism criticised that interview for: - Inaccuracy: using female pronouns for a man - Failing to challenge contested ideological claims - Not mentioning women once - despite covering disputes over women's sex-based spaces We've now had the chance to listen back to today's interview with Fiona (McAnena). While it was encouraging to hear a gender-critical woman given similar airtime, the two interviews could hardly have been more different. Morrow was largely allowed to tell his personal story uninterrupted and with relatively little challenge. McAnena faced repeated interruptions and hostile questioning, much of it relating to the recent controversy over the cancellation of a Women's Rights Network event at the Belfast arts festival Féile an Phobail. Among the questions Buckler put to her - some more than once - were: - Do you accept that people born male should be allowed to live as women? - Do you object to referring to Tristan Morrow as "she"? - How does using female pronouns for trans women impact your rights? - Do you believe trans people have a right to exist? - Do you accept there are adults who feel they are in the wrong body? - Would you welcome a trans person to your event ? McAnena did an admirable job of steering the conversation back to women's rights. Buckler repeatedly returned it to transgender identity. Buckler also made several references to SEEN in Journalism's criticism of his interview with Morrow, but appeared to misunderstand the substance of our argument. We did not say he should have included a female voice to "push back" on Morrow. We said he never mentioned women or women's rights once during a 21-minute interview about a dispute rooted in women's sex-based spaces. That is a different point entirely. We also raised concerns about inaccurate language - using female pronouns to describe a male guest. Rather than engaging with those concerns, Buckler appeared to double down - at one point, appearing to rebuke McAnena for referring to Morrow as "he". But our criticism wasn't about politeness. It was about accuracy. A principle the BBC should hold in the highest regard. At one point, Buckler said he wasn't speaking from either side. Yet across these two interviews, listeners learnt far more about identifying as trans than they did about why women defend sex-based rights. Good journalism should help audiences understand competing perspectives, not steer them towards one.

SEEN in Journalism

79,364 views • 2 months ago

Recently, on Chris Williamson's podcast, said it's "not true" that "there are only two sexes" in humans. He also claimed that "there are people with male brains in female bodies, and conversely." I'd like to address both claims directly to help clear up some confusion. THE SEX BINARY First, Eric used the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, and when prompted to clarify he explicitly claimed sex (as well as gender) was not binary. He brought up people with intersex conditions as the reason why he believes this. But the existence of people with rare intersex conditions does not in any way negate the reality of the sex binary. That’s because the sex binary simply means “there are only two sexes,” and this is true because there are only two types of gametes. Males and females are universally defined by the gametes they have the function to produce, with males producing small gametes (sperm) and females producing large ones (ova). The sex binary does not mean “everyone is either male or female.” This may seem overly pedantic, bit it’s an important distinction. It may be possible that a person can be so sexually ambiguous as to defy categorization as either male or female, but sex ambiguity is not a third sex. The existence and prevalence of complex DSDs or so-called “intersex” conditions is irrelevant to the question of how many sexes there are. So, on this point, Eric is simply confused about what sexes are at a fundamental level. There are only two sexes because there are only two types of gametes—sperm and ova. I agree with Eric that we need to be compassionate and accommodating of people who might be sexually ambiguous. But claiming it’s “no true” that “there are only two sexes’ is definitely not the way to go about this. Apart from being incorrect, it carries a tremendous amount of baggage that I believe Eric and I would both agree must be avoided. BRAIN SEX Lastly, Eric said he believed it’s true that "there are people with male brains in female bodies, and conversely." Again, I believe this is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding about what sexes are. Simply put, brains do not and cannot have their own sex that differs from the body. Whole organisms have a sex, individual organs do not. However, it is true that various body parts and organs can differ in the degree of how masculinized or feminized they are or appear. Hands are a great example of this, as their morphology is sensitive to in utero testosterone levels. As a result, some females have very masculine looking hands, and some males have very feminine looking hands. But no matter how masculine a female’s hands may be, it would never be correct to say that she has “male hands on a female body.” The same goes for brains and any other organ or appendage. While the brains of males and females can vary in the degree to which they are masculinized or feminized, it is never the case that a person can possess the brain of the opposite sex, even if they deeply feel that way. Eric, I’m a fan of yours and believe you possess tremendous insight on many topics, but I think you need to give this specific topic some more thought. I would be more than happy to chat with you about this if you’re ever interested. I think it's extremely important. Watch the whole podcast at the link below. 🔗
4:12

Recently, on Chris Williamson's podcast, said it's "not true" that "there are only two sexes" in humans. He also claimed that "there are people with male brains in female bodies, and conversely." I'd like to address both claims directly to help clear up some confusion. THE SEX BINARY First, Eric used the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, and when prompted to clarify he explicitly claimed sex (as well as gender) was not binary. He brought up people with intersex conditions as the reason why he believes this. But the existence of people with rare intersex conditions does not in any way negate the reality of the sex binary. That’s because the sex binary simply means “there are only two sexes,” and this is true because there are only two types of gametes. Males and females are universally defined by the gametes they have the function to produce, with males producing small gametes (sperm) and females producing large ones (ova). The sex binary does not mean “everyone is either male or female.” This may seem overly pedantic, bit it’s an important distinction. It may be possible that a person can be so sexually ambiguous as to defy categorization as either male or female, but sex ambiguity is not a third sex. The existence and prevalence of complex DSDs or so-called “intersex” conditions is irrelevant to the question of how many sexes there are. So, on this point, Eric is simply confused about what sexes are at a fundamental level. There are only two sexes because there are only two types of gametes—sperm and ova. I agree with Eric that we need to be compassionate and accommodating of people who might be sexually ambiguous. But claiming it’s “no true” that “there are only two sexes’ is definitely not the way to go about this. Apart from being incorrect, it carries a tremendous amount of baggage that I believe Eric and I would both agree must be avoided. BRAIN SEX Lastly, Eric said he believed it’s true that "there are people with male brains in female bodies, and conversely." Again, I believe this is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding about what sexes are. Simply put, brains do not and cannot have their own sex that differs from the body. Whole organisms have a sex, individual organs do not. However, it is true that various body parts and organs can differ in the degree of how masculinized or feminized they are or appear. Hands are a great example of this, as their morphology is sensitive to in utero testosterone levels. As a result, some females have very masculine looking hands, and some males have very feminine looking hands. But no matter how masculine a female’s hands may be, it would never be correct to say that she has “male hands on a female body.” The same goes for brains and any other organ or appendage. While the brains of males and females can vary in the degree to which they are masculinized or feminized, it is never the case that a person can possess the brain of the opposite sex, even if they deeply feel that way. Eric, I’m a fan of yours and believe you possess tremendous insight on many topics, but I think you need to give this specific topic some more thought. I would be more than happy to chat with you about this if you’re ever interested. I think it's extremely important. Watch the whole podcast at the link below. 🔗

Colin Wright

1,059,715 views • 2 years ago

The Banter Ban is coming to a pub near you. But what does it actually mean? 🍺 Employers will be required to take “all reasonable steps” to protect their employees from third-party, non-sexual harassment. That includes conversations, remarks and jokes that aren't directed at an employee, but which they overhear and find offensive or upsetting. Bonkers right? How are publicans supposed to shield employees from overhearing the banter of drunk customers? The government has quietly published an 'impact assessment' estimating it will cost small business owners £23.7 million just to familiarise themselves with their new legal duties under the banter ban — plus £124,000 a year in ongoing costs for a decade. Total could be as high as £59 million, according to the Government. But, of course, that's a woeful underestimate. The assessment claims it will take business owners just 30 minutes to understand these burdensome new obligations. Oh yeah? To give just one example of what publicans will have wrestle with: they'll have to work out whether to allow transwomen access to the women's lavatories. Unde this new law, female employees could sue for harassment if they find themselves in a loo with a man, but transwomen could also sue for discrimination if they aren't allowed to use the ladies. The legal complexity of that situation, involving a conflict of rights under the Equality Act, is Bridget Phillipson's excuse for delaying issuing EHRC guidance about access to single-sex women's spaces. Yet the Govenment is asking us to believe that publicans will be able to get their heads around this legal minefield in half an hour? The legal and compliance costs for landlords — not to mention the financial risk — could be the final nail in the coffin for the British pub -- and 540 are predicted to close this year. Watch Lord Young below 👇
5:31

The Banter Ban is coming to a pub near you. But what does it actually mean? 🍺 Employers will be required to take “all reasonable steps” to protect their employees from third-party, non-sexual harassment. That includes conversations, remarks and jokes that aren't directed at an employee, but which they overhear and find offensive or upsetting. Bonkers right? How are publicans supposed to shield employees from overhearing the banter of drunk customers? The government has quietly published an 'impact assessment' estimating it will cost small business owners £23.7 million just to familiarise themselves with their new legal duties under the banter ban — plus £124,000 a year in ongoing costs for a decade. Total could be as high as £59 million, according to the Government. But, of course, that's a woeful underestimate. The assessment claims it will take business owners just 30 minutes to understand these burdensome new obligations. Oh yeah? To give just one example of what publicans will have wrestle with: they'll have to work out whether to allow transwomen access to the women's lavatories. Unde this new law, female employees could sue for harassment if they find themselves in a loo with a man, but transwomen could also sue for discrimination if they aren't allowed to use the ladies. The legal complexity of that situation, involving a conflict of rights under the Equality Act, is Bridget Phillipson's excuse for delaying issuing EHRC guidance about access to single-sex women's spaces. Yet the Govenment is asking us to believe that publicans will be able to get their heads around this legal minefield in half an hour? The legal and compliance costs for landlords — not to mention the financial risk — could be the final nail in the coffin for the British pub -- and 540 are predicted to close this year. Watch Lord Young below 👇

The Free Speech Union

217,731 views • 9 months ago

"I'm not a trans woman. I'm a woman." Barrister Samantha Kane, speaking to Channel 4 News and Maya Forstater, says that he changed the biological sex of every cell in his body. It was necessary for the UK Supreme Court to clarify that 'woman' refers to females because men like Kane are making the preposterous argument that they are biologically female. Kane says he believes he is actually female because he had sexual relations with a male medical doctor who Kane believes couldn't tell he was a man. Men who engage in sexual acts while pretending to be a woman are engaging in a male sexual fetish. That male sex drive and motivation underpins all of trans activism, and it is one of the most determined, and often irrational, forces in nature.
5:08

"I'm not a trans woman. I'm a woman." Barrister Samantha Kane, speaking to Channel 4 News and Maya Forstater, says that he changed the biological sex of every cell in his body. It was necessary for the UK Supreme Court to clarify that 'woman' refers to females because men like Kane are making the preposterous argument that they are biologically female. Kane says he believes he is actually female because he had sexual relations with a male medical doctor who Kane believes couldn't tell he was a man. Men who engage in sexual acts while pretending to be a woman are engaging in a male sexual fetish. That male sex drive and motivation underpins all of trans activism, and it is one of the most determined, and often irrational, forces in nature.

Genevieve Gluck

358,796 views • 1 year ago

CNN tries to tell these conservatives that banning 'trans' men in women's sport is discrimination, but they aren't having it. CNN: "But the implications of this case ultimately lay the foundation for there being circumstances where trans people are excluded from other sectors of society. Is that something that you would be comfortable with?" Alliance Defending Freedom CEO: "I don't agree with that assertion at all. The case focused on whether men can participate in women's sports, or whether that sex discrimination. What we heard today from the aclu is that it was unable to define what biological sex means, which actually ends up being difficult to prove that their sex discrimination. If you can't even identify what sex means. It also erases the rights of women."
2:13

CNN tries to tell these conservatives that banning 'trans' men in women's sport is discrimination, but they aren't having it. CNN: "But the implications of this case ultimately lay the foundation for there being circumstances where trans people are excluded from other sectors of society. Is that something that you would be comfortable with?" Alliance Defending Freedom CEO: "I don't agree with that assertion at all. The case focused on whether men can participate in women's sports, or whether that sex discrimination. What we heard today from the aclu is that it was unable to define what biological sex means, which actually ends up being difficult to prove that their sex discrimination. If you can't even identify what sex means. It also erases the rights of women."

DeVory Darkins

376,084 views • 9 months ago

"Janet, can you explain to me why single-sex spaces are so important to women?" Mark Dolan asked me in an interview this afternoon. Such a simple question. Yet one I rarely hear journalists ask women. Far more often we're asked why we object to using she/her pronouns for males, whether we understand how upsetting exclusion can be, or told that the real issue is male violence against women - not trans people using our toilets/changing rooms. I'm sure it won't surprise anyone that Dolan broadly agrees with me. But that's irrelevant. On the day the new EHRC guidance on single-sex spaces came into force, every journalist should have been asking women this question - and genuinely wanting to understand the answer. Regardless of any personal views they may hold. If you're trying to help audiences understand what has become a highly contested issue, you have to ask women why single-sex spaces matter to them in the first place - and let audiences hear the answer so they can reach their own conclusions. Full interview available over on Talk
1:07

"Janet, can you explain to me why single-sex spaces are so important to women?" Mark Dolan asked me in an interview this afternoon. Such a simple question. Yet one I rarely hear journalists ask women. Far more often we're asked why we object to using she/her pronouns for males, whether we understand how upsetting exclusion can be, or told that the real issue is male violence against women - not trans people using our toilets/changing rooms. I'm sure it won't surprise anyone that Dolan broadly agrees with me. But that's irrelevant. On the day the new EHRC guidance on single-sex spaces came into force, every journalist should have been asking women this question - and genuinely wanting to understand the answer. Regardless of any personal views they may hold. If you're trying to help audiences understand what has become a highly contested issue, you have to ask women why single-sex spaces matter to them in the first place - and let audiences hear the answer so they can reach their own conclusions. Full interview available over on Talk

Janet Murray

22,557 views • 2 months ago

🤦‍♂️ CAR CRASH Interview: Hackney Green Mayor Zoe Garbett’s excruciating, slippery dance around one simple question about women. Stig Abell: “There’s law that says women should be able to have access to spaces that biological men cannot. That is now a right that is enshrined in law. When you say that trans women should be allowed into there, you are competing against that right?” Zoe deflects to EHRC guidance and claims many organisations say third spaces for trans people is against their human rights and Equality Act. Stig rightly jumps in and says: “The Supreme Court ruling, is the Supreme Court ruling. It’s called the Supreme Court for a reason. As Hackney mayor you can’t do anything about that can you? Are you saying that trans women should have access to women only spaces in Hackney?” She completely ignores it: “What we need to talk is how people are living their everyday lives” and how she’s “talking to trans legal clinic and other organisations to make sure the rights of trans people aren’t being excluded from public life.” Stig, frustrated: “So do you want trans women to access women’s spaces in Hackney? You would like that to happen?” Zoe dodges again: “I deeply care about the safety of women in Hackney. I’ve made this a priority. Domestic violence in this country needs to be seriously looked at. This whole conversation is completely ignoring the fact that women are most under threat from a domestic partner.” Stig interrupts again: “We have regular conversations about domestic violence but my question is a different one. Would you like there to be in Hackney the fact that trans women can enter women only spaces?” Finally she admits it: “I think its about what we’re talking about in terms of women only spaces, like trans women for me should have the right to access women’s spaces, they are women.” Stig puts her right: “Well they’re not according to the law. That’s precisely what the Supreme Court’s saying they’re not. They’re not biological women.” Zoe: “But this is why we need to look at what spaces we’re talking about.” Stig, losing patience, again cuts her off: “It might be changing rooms, it might be refuges, places where women want to be away from men. The law says that trans women are not allowed there and I think you’re saying you wouldn’t want to uphold that law?” Zoe in full denial: “But trans women are women and they face higher risks of sexual violence.” Stig, not letting her off the hook: “But they’re not women according to the Supreme Court?” Zoe freezes for a second, then says: “But then I think that’s where we have a problem and we’ll continue to see that challenged because if we want to keep women safe then this ruling doesnt do that.” She says keeping biological men out of women’s spaces makes women less safe. She “deeply cares about the safety of women” and prioritises domestic violence, yet wants men in women’s refuges. She talks endlessly about helping women while completely ignoring women’s rights in favour of a minority of men. Absolutely exhausting ideological contortions. One straight question took Herculean effort to get a straight(ish) answer. This is what woke governance looks like, slippery, evasive, and dangerous for actual women. Stig deserves a medal for persisting. Most just let them spout their soundbites. Hackney, this is your mayor. 😵‍💫
2:39

🤦‍♂️ CAR CRASH Interview: Hackney Green Mayor Zoe Garbett’s excruciating, slippery dance around one simple question about women. Stig Abell: “There’s law that says women should be able to have access to spaces that biological men cannot. That is now a right that is enshrined in law. When you say that trans women should be allowed into there, you are competing against that right?” Zoe deflects to EHRC guidance and claims many organisations say third spaces for trans people is against their human rights and Equality Act. Stig rightly jumps in and says: “The Supreme Court ruling, is the Supreme Court ruling. It’s called the Supreme Court for a reason. As Hackney mayor you can’t do anything about that can you? Are you saying that trans women should have access to women only spaces in Hackney?” She completely ignores it: “What we need to talk is how people are living their everyday lives” and how she’s “talking to trans legal clinic and other organisations to make sure the rights of trans people aren’t being excluded from public life.” Stig, frustrated: “So do you want trans women to access women’s spaces in Hackney? You would like that to happen?” Zoe dodges again: “I deeply care about the safety of women in Hackney. I’ve made this a priority. Domestic violence in this country needs to be seriously looked at. This whole conversation is completely ignoring the fact that women are most under threat from a domestic partner.” Stig interrupts again: “We have regular conversations about domestic violence but my question is a different one. Would you like there to be in Hackney the fact that trans women can enter women only spaces?” Finally she admits it: “I think its about what we’re talking about in terms of women only spaces, like trans women for me should have the right to access women’s spaces, they are women.” Stig puts her right: “Well they’re not according to the law. That’s precisely what the Supreme Court’s saying they’re not. They’re not biological women.” Zoe: “But this is why we need to look at what spaces we’re talking about.” Stig, losing patience, again cuts her off: “It might be changing rooms, it might be refuges, places where women want to be away from men. The law says that trans women are not allowed there and I think you’re saying you wouldn’t want to uphold that law?” Zoe in full denial: “But trans women are women and they face higher risks of sexual violence.” Stig, not letting her off the hook: “But they’re not women according to the Supreme Court?” Zoe freezes for a second, then says: “But then I think that’s where we have a problem and we’ll continue to see that challenged because if we want to keep women safe then this ruling doesnt do that.” She says keeping biological men out of women’s spaces makes women less safe. She “deeply cares about the safety of women” and prioritises domestic violence, yet wants men in women’s refuges. She talks endlessly about helping women while completely ignoring women’s rights in favour of a minority of men. Absolutely exhausting ideological contortions. One straight question took Herculean effort to get a straight(ish) answer. This is what woke governance looks like, slippery, evasive, and dangerous for actual women. Stig deserves a medal for persisting. Most just let them spout their soundbites. Hackney, this is your mayor. 😵‍💫

J Stewart

33,728 views • 4 months ago

A 2025 study of American billionaires found large sex differences in marital behavior: 30% of the male billionaires married billionaires, whereas 65% of female billionaires married a billionaire. There used to be this belief that as women became more successful, more economically independent, and more educated, they would become more willing to “date down” in terms of the socioeconomic status of their male partner. The idea was that because women were becoming economically self-sufficient, they would no longer need to look for that quality in a partner. But if anything, it seems to go the other way. The more successful a woman is, the more likely she is to want a man who is at least as successful as she is. You can see this in research on women with advanced degrees, women with high incomes, women who are millionaires, and women who are billionaires. A female billionaire is far more likely to be married to a male billionaire than a male billionaire is to be married to a female billionaire. Male billionaires generally tend to marry successful women, but usually not women who are as financially successful as themselves. They tend to marry women who are educated, upper-middle-class or above, and accomplished in some way. But female billionaires are much more likely to marry men who are also at the very top economically.
1:05

A 2025 study of American billionaires found large sex differences in marital behavior: 30% of the male billionaires married billionaires, whereas 65% of female billionaires married a billionaire. There used to be this belief that as women became more successful, more economically independent, and more educated, they would become more willing to “date down” in terms of the socioeconomic status of their male partner. The idea was that because women were becoming economically self-sufficient, they would no longer need to look for that quality in a partner. But if anything, it seems to go the other way. The more successful a woman is, the more likely she is to want a man who is at least as successful as she is. You can see this in research on women with advanced degrees, women with high incomes, women who are millionaires, and women who are billionaires. A female billionaire is far more likely to be married to a male billionaire than a male billionaire is to be married to a female billionaire. Male billionaires generally tend to marry successful women, but usually not women who are as financially successful as themselves. They tend to marry women who are educated, upper-middle-class or above, and accomplished in some way. But female billionaires are much more likely to marry men who are also at the very top economically.

Rob Henderson

99,463 views • 4 months ago

Thank you to Sex Matters for asking Julia Gillard if sex matters. See, it’s Gillard’s amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that removed the definition of “woman” & added “gender identity”, muddling the whole thing & allowing men who claim to be women to interpret the act to their advantage. The amendments took effect in 2013 but it’s not like the act has been working for the past 11 years. With the help of the Australian Human Rights Commission, many people & businesses have been intimidated into accepting men as women. I say “intimidated” because it is intimidating to receive an Australian Human Rights Commission complaint on the basis of alleged “gender identity discrimination” (under the Sex Discrimination Act… yes, none of it makes any sense) and have to either do everything the AHRC says or fight a lengthy & expensive Federal Court battle. The AHRC wanted me to pay the man who made the complaint against me $20,000, attend “sex & gender education”, allow him onto a female only platform & allow all men who claim to be women onto a female only platform. I said no. Not just because I want the platform to remain female only but because I am a woman & I reserve the right to say NO to men when they trespass my boundaries. So I said NO to the AHRC. What resulted has been an almost 3 year long battle. It started when I was 15 weeks pregnant. My daughter will be turning 3 when the appeal to the first Federal Court decision is heard in appeal to the Full Federal Court (3 judges). She will be 4 years old if/when it goes to the High Court. But I want her to grow up in a country where she has rights, including the right to say NO to a man in a dress. What mother would ever stop fighting for her daughter? In the Tickle v Giggle decision, the judge said that “indirect discrimination” occurred “on the basis of gender identity”. It didn’t. He was blocked from the app on the basis of sex - and his sex is male. A simple DNA test would prove that. My eyes clearly saw it. The judge, with the help of the AHRC’s absurd interpretation of the law & reality, said that “sex is changeable”. It isn’t. Sex is immutable. However, Gillard’s amendments along with state-based changes to birth certificate legislation that allows men to edit their BC to the opposite of their biological sex has created the concept of “legal sex”. Legal sex is gender identity aka gender ideology. It obliterates women’s rights to say NO to men if that man declares himself to be a woman. And that leads to verdicts of “indirect discrimination on the basis of gender identity”, despite not knowing or caring that he has a gender identity. Sex matters. This law has to change, and it will, in part because of Giggle v Tickle & everyone who supports the case, but also because of the hard work of every woman who is speaking up and saying NO to this absurd situation. We’re saying what Julia Gillard should have said in 2013. While she (evidently) can’t answer the question, I know that sex matters to Julia Gillard. I know this because she basked in being Australia’s first woman Prime Minister and has dined out on the fact for almost 10 years. Without the reality of sex, her achievement becomes obsolete. With what she did with her achievement, her legacy has become devastating. I have a lot of respect for people who admit they got something wrong. It happens. We’re all only human (and humans don’t change sex). I hope Julia Gillard takes the opportunity to admit it some time. In the meantime, women around Australia (and the world) will continue to do the work to ensure that we can say NO to men who claim to be women. Sex matters. Gender identity does not.
2:35

Thank you to Sex Matters for asking Julia Gillard if sex matters. See, it’s Gillard’s amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that removed the definition of “woman” & added “gender identity”, muddling the whole thing & allowing men who claim to be women to interpret the act to their advantage. The amendments took effect in 2013 but it’s not like the act has been working for the past 11 years. With the help of the Australian Human Rights Commission, many people & businesses have been intimidated into accepting men as women. I say “intimidated” because it is intimidating to receive an Australian Human Rights Commission complaint on the basis of alleged “gender identity discrimination” (under the Sex Discrimination Act… yes, none of it makes any sense) and have to either do everything the AHRC says or fight a lengthy & expensive Federal Court battle. The AHRC wanted me to pay the man who made the complaint against me $20,000, attend “sex & gender education”, allow him onto a female only platform & allow all men who claim to be women onto a female only platform. I said no. Not just because I want the platform to remain female only but because I am a woman & I reserve the right to say NO to men when they trespass my boundaries. So I said NO to the AHRC. What resulted has been an almost 3 year long battle. It started when I was 15 weeks pregnant. My daughter will be turning 3 when the appeal to the first Federal Court decision is heard in appeal to the Full Federal Court (3 judges). She will be 4 years old if/when it goes to the High Court. But I want her to grow up in a country where she has rights, including the right to say NO to a man in a dress. What mother would ever stop fighting for her daughter? In the Tickle v Giggle decision, the judge said that “indirect discrimination” occurred “on the basis of gender identity”. It didn’t. He was blocked from the app on the basis of sex - and his sex is male. A simple DNA test would prove that. My eyes clearly saw it. The judge, with the help of the AHRC’s absurd interpretation of the law & reality, said that “sex is changeable”. It isn’t. Sex is immutable. However, Gillard’s amendments along with state-based changes to birth certificate legislation that allows men to edit their BC to the opposite of their biological sex has created the concept of “legal sex”. Legal sex is gender identity aka gender ideology. It obliterates women’s rights to say NO to men if that man declares himself to be a woman. And that leads to verdicts of “indirect discrimination on the basis of gender identity”, despite not knowing or caring that he has a gender identity. Sex matters. This law has to change, and it will, in part because of Giggle v Tickle & everyone who supports the case, but also because of the hard work of every woman who is speaking up and saying NO to this absurd situation. We’re saying what Julia Gillard should have said in 2013. While she (evidently) can’t answer the question, I know that sex matters to Julia Gillard. I know this because she basked in being Australia’s first woman Prime Minister and has dined out on the fact for almost 10 years. Without the reality of sex, her achievement becomes obsolete. With what she did with her achievement, her legacy has become devastating. I have a lot of respect for people who admit they got something wrong. It happens. We’re all only human (and humans don’t change sex). I hope Julia Gillard takes the opportunity to admit it some time. In the meantime, women around Australia (and the world) will continue to do the work to ensure that we can say NO to men who claim to be women. Sex matters. Gender identity does not.

Sall Grover

33,499 views • 1 year ago

Another week, another attempt by woke academics to push sex pseudoscience. In my video, I explain why a new paper in Neurotoxicology claiming that "sex is a spectrum," a "mosaic of factors," and a "conglomeration of variables" isn't just wrong, but totally self-refuting. It tries to argue that the term "sex differences" is an "underdefined generalization that creates a distinct binary" when sex is actually a "spectrum." So instead of saying "sex differences," the authors propose a new term: "Sex-Associated Variables," or SAVs. These SAVs, according to the authors, include morphological, genetic, and endocrine factors. The authors state that "The use of SAVs allows for a more nuanced analysis of potential sex differences by using several different sex related characteristics as a defined variable that can be correlated with outcomes, rather than a reductive category." But ask yourself this: How do the authors know which variables are "associated" with being male or female without knowing what males and females are independently of these SAVs? The entire point of the paper is to deny a gamete-based view of sex on grounds that it is overly "reductive" and fails to capture the complexity of sex differences. But the authors are totally oblivious (or at least willfully ignorant) to the fact that their ability to assign SAVs to a particular sex, not just in humans but in non-human animals as well, necessarily presupposes the validity of the gamete-based view of sex. Watch the video for a more detailed breakdown. I've covered this argument, and many others, in great detail in my scholarly paper "Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes." If you want a solid framework that exposes the central flaws in woke pseudoscience surrounding biological sex, I strongly recommend reading it. It's open access and relatively short. Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes:
6:38

Another week, another attempt by woke academics to push sex pseudoscience. In my video, I explain why a new paper in Neurotoxicology claiming that "sex is a spectrum," a "mosaic of factors," and a "conglomeration of variables" isn't just wrong, but totally self-refuting. It tries to argue that the term "sex differences" is an "underdefined generalization that creates a distinct binary" when sex is actually a "spectrum." So instead of saying "sex differences," the authors propose a new term: "Sex-Associated Variables," or SAVs. These SAVs, according to the authors, include morphological, genetic, and endocrine factors. The authors state that "The use of SAVs allows for a more nuanced analysis of potential sex differences by using several different sex related characteristics as a defined variable that can be correlated with outcomes, rather than a reductive category." But ask yourself this: How do the authors know which variables are "associated" with being male or female without knowing what males and females are independently of these SAVs? The entire point of the paper is to deny a gamete-based view of sex on grounds that it is overly "reductive" and fails to capture the complexity of sex differences. But the authors are totally oblivious (or at least willfully ignorant) to the fact that their ability to assign SAVs to a particular sex, not just in humans but in non-human animals as well, necessarily presupposes the validity of the gamete-based view of sex. Watch the video for a more detailed breakdown. I've covered this argument, and many others, in great detail in my scholarly paper "Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes." If you want a solid framework that exposes the central flaws in woke pseudoscience surrounding biological sex, I strongly recommend reading it. It's open access and relatively short. Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes:

Colin Wright

38,173 views • 5 months ago

“Student Tried To OUTSMART Ben Shapiro On Trans Ideology — Then Got Shut Down” Student: You said, "I'm not going to modify basic biology because it threatens your subjective sense of what you are." Why is referring to a trans woman as a woman so threatening to biology? Ben Shapiro: The term "mother" does not include "father." Every category has to have boundaries. When you start including male in the category of female, you are threatening biological definitions as well as basic truth. Student: What do you think about the distinction between cis women and trans women? We've offered terms like biological woman or assigned female at birth to properly categorize people. Ben Shapiro: Again, you cannot extend the term woman to apply to a biological male. Every category has an endpoint. If there are only two categories, male and female, and you say that female now includes male, there are no definitions. I'm going to need you to explain what a woman is without reference to the word woman. Student: I wouldn't say it's necessarily circular to say that a woman is someone who exhibits womanhood. Womanhood is a set of characteristics associated with females. Ben Shapiro: Yes, it is. That's definitionally circular. You have just used the word female and woman to define each other. You say a woman is a female, but not a biological female,a female is a woman, and a woman is a female. At no point have you added any new content. Student: There are plenty of labels that refer to concepts. This is not a new thing. Ben Shapiro: You have not defined even womanhood. You said a set of characteristics that applies to females, and then you're applying it to males. So clearly this is nonsensical. A dog is a thing that exhibits the characteristics of doghood. If you have no idea what a dog is, you still have no idea what a dog is. I'm sorry that your attempts to worm a definition into nonsense are not succeeding, but I can't make that fit into logic because it doesn't.
3:42

“Student Tried To OUTSMART Ben Shapiro On Trans Ideology — Then Got Shut Down” Student: You said, "I'm not going to modify basic biology because it threatens your subjective sense of what you are." Why is referring to a trans woman as a woman so threatening to biology? Ben Shapiro: The term "mother" does not include "father." Every category has to have boundaries. When you start including male in the category of female, you are threatening biological definitions as well as basic truth. Student: What do you think about the distinction between cis women and trans women? We've offered terms like biological woman or assigned female at birth to properly categorize people. Ben Shapiro: Again, you cannot extend the term woman to apply to a biological male. Every category has an endpoint. If there are only two categories, male and female, and you say that female now includes male, there are no definitions. I'm going to need you to explain what a woman is without reference to the word woman. Student: I wouldn't say it's necessarily circular to say that a woman is someone who exhibits womanhood. Womanhood is a set of characteristics associated with females. Ben Shapiro: Yes, it is. That's definitionally circular. You have just used the word female and woman to define each other. You say a woman is a female, but not a biological female,a female is a woman, and a woman is a female. At no point have you added any new content. Student: There are plenty of labels that refer to concepts. This is not a new thing. Ben Shapiro: You have not defined even womanhood. You said a set of characteristics that applies to females, and then you're applying it to males. So clearly this is nonsensical. A dog is a thing that exhibits the characteristics of doghood. If you have no idea what a dog is, you still have no idea what a dog is. I'm sorry that your attempts to worm a definition into nonsense are not succeeding, but I can't make that fit into logic because it doesn't.

Jeff

42,373 views • 2 months ago

SEX 🧬 GENDER IDENTITY 🤡 MAN 🤷‍♂️ WOMAN 🤷‍♀️ The SEX Discrimination Act doesn’t define “sex.” It doesn’t define “gender identity”. It doesn’t define “man.” It doesn’t define “woman.” And these words with NO definition is the guiding legislation for human rights in Australia. 🤯 The result is pure clown-world theatre. 🤡 Parliamentarians and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner perform genuine confusion at the words “biological man” and “biological woman.” Senator Ellie Whiteaker scoffs and asks what the term “biological woman” means? Anna Cody Australian Human Rights Commission claimed to not understand the term “biological men.” 🤦‍♀️ If the Sex Discrimination Act cannot tell the difference between a woman and a man who says he is a woman, it cannot protect women. That is not inclusion. That is the erasure of sex-based rights by deliberate refusal to define the terms. 🙅‍♀️🙅‍♀️ Women no longer have an unambiguous legal right to single-sex spaces, services or sports and objecting can itself be framed as unlawful discrimination. The undefined words aren’t a loophole. They are the policy. And when asked whether the government will fix any of this, Minister for Women Katy Gallagher was crystal clear: no. No definitions of man, woman or sex will be restored. The deliberate 2013 deletion stands. 😤 WRNA is calling for the Sex Discrimination Act to be amended so that “sex” means biological sex, “woman” means adult human female, and single-sex provisions actually mean single-sex. Until that happens, women will keep being told that basic biology is a “ridiculous question”. #FixTheSDA 💜🤍💚
1:43

SEX 🧬 GENDER IDENTITY 🤡 MAN 🤷‍♂️ WOMAN 🤷‍♀️ The SEX Discrimination Act doesn’t define “sex.” It doesn’t define “gender identity”. It doesn’t define “man.” It doesn’t define “woman.” And these words with NO definition is the guiding legislation for human rights in Australia. 🤯 The result is pure clown-world theatre. 🤡 Parliamentarians and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner perform genuine confusion at the words “biological man” and “biological woman.” Senator Ellie Whiteaker scoffs and asks what the term “biological woman” means? Anna Cody Australian Human Rights Commission claimed to not understand the term “biological men.” 🤦‍♀️ If the Sex Discrimination Act cannot tell the difference between a woman and a man who says he is a woman, it cannot protect women. That is not inclusion. That is the erasure of sex-based rights by deliberate refusal to define the terms. 🙅‍♀️🙅‍♀️ Women no longer have an unambiguous legal right to single-sex spaces, services or sports and objecting can itself be framed as unlawful discrimination. The undefined words aren’t a loophole. They are the policy. And when asked whether the government will fix any of this, Minister for Women Katy Gallagher was crystal clear: no. No definitions of man, woman or sex will be restored. The deliberate 2013 deletion stands. 😤 WRNA is calling for the Sex Discrimination Act to be amended so that “sex” means biological sex, “woman” means adult human female, and single-sex provisions actually mean single-sex. Until that happens, women will keep being told that basic biology is a “ridiculous question”. #FixTheSDA 💜🤍💚

Women’s Rights Network Australia Inc.

12,111 views • 8 days ago

“A clear majority” of the Supreme Court justices appeared on Tuesday inclined to uphold state laws that ban transgender athletes from participating in girls' and women's sports, Jan Crawford reports. “The justices said these are very difficult questions. And they acknowledged that not everyone is going to be happy about it, that some people may be not want to play on the team of their biological sex,” Crawford says. Crawford also notes the Supreme Court seems poised to keep the scope of its ruling limited to sports: “I think they are going to allow states to restrict participation to a person's biological sex, as they put it, but they're going to keep it narrowly focused on sports. So, it's not going to get into issues like bathrooms or same sex spaces, locker rooms, prisons, that kind of thing.”
3:04

“A clear majority” of the Supreme Court justices appeared on Tuesday inclined to uphold state laws that ban transgender athletes from participating in girls' and women's sports, Jan Crawford reports. “The justices said these are very difficult questions. And they acknowledged that not everyone is going to be happy about it, that some people may be not want to play on the team of their biological sex,” Crawford says. Crawford also notes the Supreme Court seems poised to keep the scope of its ruling limited to sports: “I think they are going to allow states to restrict participation to a person's biological sex, as they put it, but they're going to keep it narrowly focused on sports. So, it's not going to get into issues like bathrooms or same sex spaces, locker rooms, prisons, that kind of thing.”

CBS News

80,867 views • 9 months ago