𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

For years, raising concerns about single-sex spaces has been treated as though you’ve just confessed to kicking puppies for fun. Question the prevailing orthodoxy and the response isn’t debate – it’s instant condemnation. “Bigot” gets thrown around faster than confetti at a wedding. But here’s the awkward thing. When you actually ask the public what they think, the answer is rather different from the one activists have been shouting about. A new UK-wide poll by SexMatters.org shows that the vast majority of adults prefer single-sex provision of toilets and changing rooms in workplaces, gyms and leisure centres, and for public toilets to be single-sex too. And it’s not even close. The figures are striking.

Around 78% of people favour single-sex toilets in workplaces. That rises to 81% for public toilets in places like parks and pubs. When it comes to showers and changing rooms at work, support for single-sex facilities climbs to a whopping 86%. And this isn’t some niche opinion held by a handful of crusty old traditionalists. The view cuts right across the political spectrum. Labour voters. Conservatives. Even plenty of younger voters – supposedly the most progressive generation in history – look at the issue and shrug: of course sex-based spaces should stay sex-based.

Women, perhaps unsurprisingly, feel particularly strongly about it. Funny that. Now before anyone reaches for the smelling salts, let’s be clear – most people are not arguing that transgender people shouldn’t exist or shouldn’t be treated with dignity. That’s a straw man argument that activists love to wheel out because it saves them from having to engage with the actual argument.

The real point is much simpler. The vast majority of the public believe that single-sex spaces exist for a reason. Privacy. Safety. Common sense. Yet for years politicians, campaigners and well-meaning corporate HR departments have insisted on behaving as if the opposite is true. “Anyone should be able to use whichever facilities they prefer,” we’re told, and questioning that is apparently the moral equivalent of heresy. Well, the public seems to have missed that memo.

What’s really been happening is that the national conversation has been dominated by a very small group of activists who shout extremely loudly and are treated by institutions as though they speak for everyone. They don’t.

Most people are perfectly capable of holding two thoughts in their head at the same time: treating individuals with respect while also believing that certain spaces should remain separated by sex. But try saying that out loud in polite society and you’d think you’d demanded the return of the stocks in the town square.

Perhaps it’s time the avocado-on-toast eating liberal elite class stopped lecturing the public about reality, and started accepting that most people still know the difference between men and women.

Every few months it seems Britain finds a brand new thing to argue about, and this week it’s the faces on our bank notes. The Bank of England is considering dropping famous historical figures from future notes after a public consultation suggested people might prefer themes like nature or architecture instead. Cue predictable outrage.

Under the current system our notes feature well-known Britons such as Winston Churchill, Jane Austen and Alan Turing. All towering figures in their respective fields. But the consultation, which drew around 44,000 responses, found that “nature” was actually the most popular theme, beating both “architecture and landmarks” and “notable historical figures”.

For some people this apparently signals the end of civilisation as we know it. But let’s keep a little perspective. The idea that famous Britons must appear on our money isn’t some ancient national tradition stretching back through the mists of time. In fact, it only began in 1970 when William Shakespeare was added to a banknote.

Before that, British notes got along perfectly well without a rotating cast of historical celebrities staring back at us from our wallets. The only face that really needs to be on British money is the Monarch’s. After all, that’s the one constant. Everyone else inevitably becomes a matter of taste, and that’s where the trouble begins. One person’s national hero is another person’s historical villain.

So perhaps pictures of wildlife quietly minding their own business isn’t such a terrible compromise after all. At least the badgers won’t start an argument.

How have some forgotten what our Army’s for?

While America is busy defending the world from Iranian terror, the British Army is tying itself in knots over whether male soldiers should be allowed to wear cosmetics. Forgive my pun but, honestly, you couldn’t make it up!

Serving troops have reportedly been sent a consultation about introducing gender-neutral grooming standards and dress codes. In other words, somewhere in Whitehall someone thinks the pressing question facing Britain’s armed forces is whether Private Smith should be allowed a touch of blusher.

Now look, people can live however they like in civilian life. Fill your boots. But the Army isn’t a lifestyle brand – it’s a war-fighting machine whose job is to close with, and kill, the enemy. When you’re facing an enemy who actually wants to kill you, the priority shouldn’t be checking your eyeliner in the mirror.

Soldiers are meant to look disciplined, uniform and, above all, intimidating. The whole point is to project strength, not individuality. Personally, I like my soldiers looking broadly the same: sharp uniforms, crew cuts, and the only face paint in sight being camouflage. I pray our enemies worry more about our firepower rather than our foundation.

Our politicians could learn a lesson from the Daily Expresso

Last week on the Daily Expresso we did something much of the modern media seems strangely allergic to – we spoke to an ordinary working member of the public. Not a career MP. Not one of the same political commentators who rotate endlessly around the TV studios. Just a bloke, one of those working people Starmer says he’s fighting for.

Martin Gauci joined us to talk about the state of Britain. He spoke honestly about his concerns, and, crucially, listened to my reasoning too. That’s what proper grassroots politics should look like – two people with different views finding the overlap where common sense lives. You don’t have to agree on everything to have a constructive conversation. If more of our politicians spent less time talking at people and more time listening to them, the public might start trusting them again.

Western feminists, are you listening?

The Iranian female footballers seeking asylum are exactly the kind of people the system was designed to protect. These women are real refugees and, frankly, real heroes. It’s likely they will face punishment for refusing to sing the Iranian national anthem – a small act of defiance that carries enormous risk under a regime that treats female independence as a crime.

We instinctively sympathise with them because we know what the Iranian authorities do to women who step out of line.

Which is why Western feminists should pay attention. This is what feminism looks like – brave women standing up to tyranny. If you believe in women’s rights, you should champion these women.