Would anyone mind if I ask a question about Robin Moria White?

I can only assume, Terry that RMW must believe there is a definition of "female" other than the one in the dictionary.

I certainly prefer that to the other possibility, that a member of the bar holds views which are racist and homophobic.

The idea that Robin, as a barrister, doesn’t understand the principles of statutory interpretation, is ludicrous.

The Equality Act 2010 doesn’t need to include a definition of “female” any more than it needs a definition of “pregnancy” or “age”. These words have ordinary English meanings which the Courts will apply if anyone is foolish enough to waste money asking them to confirm that “female” is a word that does not include any males, no matter how they identify.

RMW is quite wrong in the point above. Utterly wrong. Traumatised women are hyper vigilant to male signs.

I think I can gather from posting history that there is a care factor lacking there. Lip service is paid but this book blows that lip service to shreds.

“The EqA 2010 definition of ‘man’ is a male of any age and ‘woman’ is a female of any age’ (EqA s212). But without a definition of ‘male’ and ‘female’ this does not help. Is a trans male a male or a trans woman female? Is a trans woman something different from a woman? But a gay woman or a black woman are still women, why not a trans woman?”

I'm at a loss as to how a supposedly intelligent person could write something that's both homophobic and racist and not realise it...but then I remember that phrase about the misplaced confidence of mediocre white males...

if it is not possible to tell by looking at / listening to a trans woman that she is transgender

That's the thing about this that TW just don't comprehend. Female people can tell sex. We can tell the sex of a person who is walking behind us in the dark from their footsteps.

Very few trans people pass. Fair enough in photos, but in real life, with movement - women spot there is something incongruent.

Male people just see tits, toosh and teeth. That is why so many TW believe they pass because they see themselves through male eyes.

RMW is quite wrong in the point above. Utterly wrong. Traumatised women are hyper vigilant to male signs.

I've never once heard a genderist of colour use that specific analogy. It's always white people, in my experience.

I don't understand why, other than for deplorable reasons of racism, anybody ever needs to specify that black women are women.

Quite. I think it's something white woke people do, in an attempt to paint GC views as immoral and backwards, but it just makes them sound like they personally think black women in particular only have as much right to the word "woman" as some men do. Not a good look.

[quote Leafstamp]From Sarah Phillimore:

Robin White announced to a Zoom full of students (and me!) that those who argued there was tension between ‘trans’ rights and women’s rights were ‘completely mad’. I still hope Robin may retract and apologise but possibly I hope in vain.

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1433707045652418562[/quote]
Yes… incidences like the WiSpa event obviously is acceptable collateral for someone who tells people they are ‘mad’ for thinking there is tension and outright conflicts between the rights for two groups.

From Sarah Phillimore:

Robin White announced to a Zoom full of students (and me!) that those who argued there was tension between ‘trans’ rights and women’s rights were ‘completely mad’. I still hope Robin may retract and apologise but possibly I hope in vain.

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1433707045652418562

”[C]are should be taken to note the word “might”. For example, the situation may well depend on how well the trans person “passes”: if it is not possible to tell by looking at / listening to a trans woman that she is transgender then it is far less likely that the genuine occupational requirement would apply as compared with, say, a trans woman who does not pass as well and in a number of respects still looks male.”

This is chilling. Thanks again Robin for making it so very clear that the end goal is that as long as no one catches on that they are being lied to, it is ok to lie to even the most traumatised person.

Chilling indeed that honesty is no longer to be expected by anyone. Hence why the very notion of allowing language to be changed to allow males to be considered women and then female should be rejected. Because when you have males stating that it is perfectly ok in ANY circumstance to not be honest about immutable facts such as that they are male, how far will this go.

It is very obvious that those who seek to allow this lie have no concern for others. No concern for a traumatised female when she discovers that even at her very lowest she was not worth honesty. And for her to discover the deception at a later date doesn’t mean she will not be retraumatised by the discovery. How cruel.

But thanks for making it so clear.

I don't understand why, other than for deplorable reasons of racism, anybody ever needs to specify that black women are women.

“The EqA 2010 definition of ‘man’ is a male of any age and ‘woman’ is a female of any age’ (EqA s212). But without a definition of ‘male’ and ‘female’ this does not help. Is a trans male a male or a trans woman female? Is a trans woman something different from a woman? But a gay woman or a black woman are still women, why not a trans woman?”

I am so glad that this gets printed more and more. Because it must surely show to those who have derided women who refuse to accept this mantra of TW AW that the end game is the mantra that TW are female. And it will be spun that it is only a ‘social’ and ‘legal’ acceptance and not at all medical but… still… be kind and let males be what they want. And all of you are just ‘not up to date’ or ‘an extreme minority’ for saying you want a word for yourselves.

Thanks for making this clear Robin.

There’s a sleight of hand here – whether conscious or not

I’d say definitely conscious - after all, if you can muddle the definitions of man / woman / male / female enough then we enter Humpty Dumpty’s world where When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.

I, for one, am astonished that our occasional visitor has written a book with the same incoherence and misplaced over-confidence as their posting style in FWR. Remarkable consistency in mediocrity.

I half expected each chapter to begin 'Dear Diary...'

Yet again, deeply reassured that White is representing Stonewall against Allison Bailey.

This is interesting, given that White's stated position on another MN thread was that the single sex exclusion for rape counselling "even if she has a gender recognition certificate" isn't actually intended to apply to MTF males with a GRC, only FTM females. Wonder if their position change to whether "she" passes changed before or after this?:

Mulling it over, I wonder it's what happens when one spends time policing women's speech on Mumsnet, that one should really spend studying the law. We all procrastinate though, to be fair.

“Pervasive tendentiousness” is my new favourite phrase

I’ve been waiting/hoping that this book would be reviewed by someone like Naomi Cunningham. Well done Naomi.

i note the the ‘book is poorly proof-read, with minor errors sprinkled throughout the text and one instance where a section of nearly a page and a half appears in two different place.’

I mean, if you can’t get the basics and simple attention to detail right then what hope does that give for the content?!

I dislike Robin immensely.

Deliberately deceiving a rape victim for the benefit of the trans counsellor?

I thought this book was meant to help advocate for trans people, not paint them in as bad a light as possible.

This reminds me of the maxim my old Dad used to live by "If you don't know the answer, make it up."
It's an unusual approach in a legal book though.

Heehehehehe.

That's all, really. (Although no, I'll add that the 'alive/dead binary' in the review is genius, and the attempted callous argument on the part of stellar legal mind White that deliberately deceiving a rape victim is even something to consider is utterly reprehensible.)

Thank you empress
the book is equally disappointing in almost all matters of substance.
the book suffers from a pervasive tendentiousness, coupled with legal analysis that is either weak or simply absent.
There’s a sleight of hand here – whether conscious or not