Anti-trans spin from RMW

But that conversation was important. No one died. No-one was harmed. It is the lack of conversation and sheer quantity of finger pointing and threats that has made this so awful.

Absolutely

Nicely said, Artichoke!

The thing is, other people's fragile feelings cannot be a reason to hand over female humans' words, rights, equality, access, safeguarding, or to go around pretending that things are other than they are. This distorted thinking cannot and should not be enabled. I am deeply compassionate towards someone who struggles with this, but the answer has to be that they cannot expect and depend on the rest of the world enabling them at all times regardless of the detriment. The world cannot be all about them. They must find ways to manage those feelings and cope with the idea that other people have needs and rights and beliefs that must be accommodated too.

I was recently chatting with a transwoman in a local pub. She started a discussion about JKR and I said I agree with her. She started crying and insisted that JKR and I don't want her to exist.

We ended the chat with a hug but I was surprised at her fear.

But what I saw seemed to ignore the slanderous nature of what was written. I can't believe professional ethics permit slander.

Well, it certainly answers the question 'what rights do trans people not have?'.
If I saw just the title and knew nothing about this issue, I'd assume it's the right of trans people not to lose their jobs or be discriminated against in the workplace for being trans.
That I'd stand beside them wholeheartedly.
But it turns out that the 'new trans rights battlefield' is actually the 'right 'of trans people to get a woman fired if they don't like her views. That one is a hell no.

Oh yes, I've named changed since then but I remember it well.
There had been lots of comments that day speculating about who might have been responsible for the shambolic bundle. Thank goodness someone was here to remind us barristers are very important people! Even ones who can't work paper.

All very 'you are here to do as I say and as I tell you. I am not here to listen to you'.

Followed by bafflement that the response is not enthusiastic or compliant.

No thank you.

All I will say is RMW displays a boldness and sense of entitlement that the vast majority of us on this board do not. One that RMW cannot- and does not want to- identify out of.

It reminds me very much of the poster who, in the early days of the AB tribunal, posted a lecture about how we all needed to show respect for junior counsel and told us to give them all their full titles etc. There was a distinct boldness and entitlement on display there. They'd spelled Allison's name wrong, of course, but little things like that don't count, do they?

Although it's worth noting that RMW is being somewhat naive (or possibly disingenuous) in not recognising that it is entirely possible for someone to choose a username for the tribunal that doesn't match their true identity.

Some interesting discussion on Twitter between Barbara rich, Ed levey and others about whether publishing this article at this time is against professional rules and guidance. Consensus seems to be it doesn’t, but doesn’t do much for the image of the profession or the publishing barrister. Most barristers wish to appear impartial for all the obvious reasons.

This fingers in its ears, hyperbole based on nothing more than misogyny is getting beyond old now.

To quote the vid on the other thread, that deflector shield ran out of battery years ago. This is just more complaints that the service humans are revolting.

RMW "These are professions in which public speech and opinion is important, the ‘talking’ professions. If you work for Amazon and your job is packing things into boxes, there are fewer opportunities to air your views on trans people. Traditionally barristers were a pool that generated quite a lot of politicians in the country."

So how does RMW know it's a minority view when they acknowledge that people in most professions don't get to air their views?

@Floisme I agree. Regardless of what the rules say, the fascinating thing for me is the level of confidence displayed by RMW. I find it highly unusual.

Now you see I don't, I've seen many people in my working life who behave like this. The belief that only their opinion is the correct one. The belief that they will get everything they want. The indignation if someone had something they didn't. The causal disregard for entire groups of people who didn't agree with them due to the opinions of one person from that group.

I used to work predominately with men.

Make of that what you will.

I think it is ethically dodgy but RMW is trying to speak about these cases in general rather than AB's case. Their comments on that seemed to be about these evil terfy types zooming in in their coordinated master plan. Personally I wouldn't have given that interview and I hope EJG reprimands them but I can see the defence they are trying to set up.

Apart from that it is bloody annoying very revealing that arguments against GC always say they don't want trans people to exist/wish them dead. I've never seen anyone make that argument, ever. Seems the only way that TRAs can argue is to misrepresent others' views to a point beyond spectacular distortion.

And yes, this obsession with believing they pass!?!

@Motorina I'm sat here in clothes, socks and slippers all bought from a "menswear" department , and am also financially independent.

And yet here I still as female as the day I was born and the doctor pronounced me so.

I'm as stumped as you are to be honest!

I won't speculate whether any rules have been broken because I don't know enough about how the rules are applied.
All I will say is RMW displays a boldness and sense of entitlement that the vast majority of us on this board do not.

I agree. Regardless of what the rules say, the fascinating thing for me is the level of confidence displayed by RMW. I find it highly unusual.

The clothes thing makes no sense. I’m sat in jeans and an ancient fleece (because although the calendar says it’s summer the weather is identifying as trans-winter); I pay my own mortgage and earn my own money.

If a blush pink coat makes someone female, why doesn’t a blue fleece and financial independence make me male?

"If you see me [in person], you’re in no doubt about my gender...."

There was NO doubt, whatsoever, in my mind what biological sex this person was when I viewed the recent ET. The camera placement made it tricky to see this person's attired, especially as all were seated. But once the 'dress' was visible I then understood that they wanted to be seen as a woman. But nope, not easy to spot.

RMW is the Rita Skeeter of the legal world isn't she?

Don't barristers have any standards they have to follow like "don't completely misrepresent your opponent's viewpoint"?

These concerns about surgery and time off didn’t come up in earlier interviews, in those she said that the low voice was very effective. Women barristers would know this very well.

I'm reminded of the moment when during Allison Bailey's tribunal Jane Russell cross-examined Kirrin Medcalf and sounded to my ears like a bossy but kind nanny leading a child through a minefield. I heard another commentator refer to her voice as being like that of a CBeebies presenter. Very difficult to be taken seriously as a female barrister, even more if you have a classically feminine voice.

Sorry @OldCrone it was GL.

well as someone who has no issue with how someone feels, or what they want to wear, or what they call themselves, etc BUT who also happens to believe that you cannot change sex and that single sex spaces should be just that, you know as allowed in law! I take offence at being misrepresented as someone they believe to be so bloody horrible.

Sometimes I don't like or get on with certain people, for a variety of reasons. But I don't hate or wish out of existence entire groups of people because of it.

I am and have always been a live and let live sort of person. As long as you don't bother me, I won't bother you.

So yeah, what is being said about people with the same views as me, by this individual, is sounding like hate speech to me.