Dear Mr Davie

The BBC is currently at a turning point in relation to its future coverage of the sex and gender issue. As well as the Supreme Court ruling, we have Judicial Office guidance on self-identification and two reviews ongoing which will provide refreshed advice and guidelines.

The way the BBC covers this is of national importance. BBC acceptance and promotion of self-identification of sex, in the early 20-teens, led a cultural shift towards identity-driven public understanding and policy making.

There are documented harms linked to this but we won't rehearse them now. For us, as we believe it should be for you, the abandonment of accuracy and therefore impartiality is a primary material harm to the public interest in itself.

Therefore we want to make sure at this crucial juncture that you are extremely aware of the imbalance of power at the BBC. We do this in the full knowledge of the osmosis between 'people policies' and editorial, via the conduit of diversity and inclusion.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Unfortunately, at the BBC there is very little opportunity for those who understand sex-based reality to be 'squeaky' at all.

Firstly, there is no staff network for colleagues who understand that sex is real, binary and immutable. Permission was sought to set one up but not granted. One of our (non-BBC) members making a similar request (simply for the leadership to meet with BBC women staff) was recently rebuffed by the Head of Creative Diversity. It means there will be no official representations from Women at the BBC to match those made by Pride.

Secondly, every member of the BBC's People team and its Diversity and Inclusion team is signed up to the concept of gender identity. It can be a most sincerely held belief, but it is not scientifically substantiated, not impartial, and not built on fact. There is no similar powerful BBC base - to make matching representations - for those who subscribe to a reality-based approach.

Thirdly, those BBC colleagues who do wish to speak up have seen colleagues disciplined, reprimanded, ostracised, lose career opportunities and be managed out. They are therefore much less likely to speak up themselves. As you field claims that the trans and non-binary cohort at the BBC is uniquely marginalised and vulnerable, please reflect on the disparity with the powerless and voiceless position of those staff who are willing to acknowledge that it's not possible to change sex.

Fourthly, the BBC (as a whole, not specifically personally here) lives in a circular world of validation. This is acknowledged by its own audience strategies and the need to reach out to new cohorts. We know that there have been efforts to counter the problem that it is professionally and socially middle class, built on identity culture and compliant with homogenised and dominant narratives (even if - as in the case of gender identity - they are counter-factual). We do understand and appreciate that efforts to crack this nut are ongoing. However it is where we are, and many staff members are afraid because of it.

Even you yourself said last year that it was important to be kind and caring, more than to be accurate. It's an indicator of the extent to which activist tropes can start to seem harmless.

We want to be absolutely clear - we trust that those people who are working on these changes at the BBC are operating entirely in good faith.

But from their perspective, there will be very, very loud voices inside, including from senior team members, including from some senior editorial team members, including from staff networks, including coordinated complaints from staff, including from the upcoming listening session, in favour of an identity-led approach. In contrast - the internal representations for material reality could seem diminished and poor, simply because the BBC has created the conditions for them to be diminished and poor.

We would like to request that to match the upcoming 'listening day' for trans and non-binary people, you find a way to hear the concerns of staff members who (in shorthand) might be called 'gender critical' - ie they understand sex is real.

Please be aware that a matching 'listening day' would be welcome but could expose those taking part to repercussions (you will have seen the violent signs and language at protests and on social media). Therefore it maybe more sensitive and inclusive to issue a statement inviting BBC staff who acknowledge the binary and immutable nature of sex to express their views or get in touch with any of the reviews and consultations currently ongoing.

It would also be useful to clarify in a staff-wide statement that under the law (Forstater v CGD) belief that sex is real, and matters, is not only true, but worthy of respect in a democratic society. Don't forget that you have members of staff who suffer very badly under gender identity led activism. The People team may already have issued such a statement, but they should certainly do so now as an act of reassurance.

We hope you can see that claims of marginalisation, on which 'harm or offence' editorial recommendations are often built, are not well-founded. We think some campaigners have confused the words 'marginal' and 'marginalised'. For a small, marginal group, gender identity advocates have disproportionate levels of power. Apart from internal BBC influence, we see in the Sullivan Review that gender identity has primacy over sex in every public institution from the NHS to the police to the civil service and local government.

A final request: please do not imagine that what happens inside the BBC bubble is in any way representative of public discourse. The BBC has a responsibility at this key moment to do what is right in the public interest. It exists to serve that interest, not the demands of internal activists.