Anti-trans spin from RMW

RMW or GL? I googled and found this about GL:
news.berkeley.edu/2021/06/14/qa-with-grace-lavery/

Do they just not get it? It's not hatred of trans people, it is the ability to risk assess men on the basis of them being men, and make decisions accordingly?

They know they are men, we know they are men, they know we know they are men and we know they know that we know they are men. All this flouncing around shouting 'they hate trans people' doesn't actually help anyone.

Binding them is an inexplicable opposition – in many cases, what feels closer to virulent hatred – to the existence of trans people.

That kind of misrepresentation is itself hate speech.

Robin shares your fear- hence her statement that the goal of these so called anti trans (cough pro women cough) positions was to spread awareness which would grow the movement. It wouldn’t grow the movement if telling people what’s going on didn’t make them go wtf. Odd Robin admitted that really when she has obviously realised it’s poor optics to continue admitting that her male voice was useful in a courtroom and yes you can have your cake and eat it too as long as you are born the right sex. 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.

Would they refer it to the 'Ethics committee'...I wonder...which of course includes someone on the same tribunal.

Or should I say they/them , not sure.

She lost me when she said' it is truly possible to change sex.' That is a direct quote from her webpage.

"Think of the things you could do with that money, choose any charity, give to the poor..."
RMW, you're disgraceful.

Grace Lavery said in the Nolan podcast that GL passed "until I open my mouth". Never having seen GL, I googled. Well. No. Even with allllllll the filters.

@SerotinaPickeler I'm with you 100%. You make excellent points. The argument is constantly framed as being 'anti-trans'. I am most certainly not that, however I feel strongly that the rights of women and girls are being eroded to keep a small minority happy. In doing so, the people readily dismantling those rights have made enemies of people who could be allies, but just not in the way they wanted.

Well, that was certainly an astounding read. Not, perhaps, in the way RMW intended though.

I am SO angry at this. So so so angry. It is utterly wrong.

On one of the threads about AB's tribunal, posters speculated how long it would take RMW to comment online on the case. Did anyone think it would be 5 days after the last day of the tribunal.
This will be brought to EJ's attention and the Bar Council's. 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. One that RMW cannot- and does not want to- identify out of.

Exactly this, plus possibly defaming Forstater and Bailey, be interested to see if the judge in Bailey picks this up.

Harrop did indeed give an interview to a 'newspaper' during his hearing, but let's not forget Harrop is a GP and not a barrister. In this case, barrister who is actually acting for one of the respondents in the case the interview hinges on gave the interview.

I cannot see how this was a smart move on RMW"s part.

From that this morning clip. "Never thought about dressing female"

What does that even mean? If they spent all the years before dressed in joggers, jeans and tee shirts that would, according to my wardrobe contents be dressing bloody female.

Putting a skirt or dress or tights or high heels, or make-up on, or doing my hair nice are all to me as a female not part of being female. Ever. never has been, never will be.

And add she sounds like a man, well.......what does she expect? Seriously? She was miss gendered, twice. Get over it.

I used to work on a building site, with my boots, high Vis and hard hat trousers and jumper. Can you guess how many times a day I got call Mr, mate, lad , son, boy, sir etc. It was definitely more than 2, especially when a new site was starting up and people didn't know they'd hired one of those bloody females. Did I Complain! Of course I bloody didn't it was a mistake. Mistakes happen. I wasnt, I wasn't humiliated. I didn't feel threatened or under attack. I corrected them and moved on.

Telling isn't it. Women wanting sex segregation, however its managed,
confers instant victimhood on those who are excluded.

Harrop this too didn't he. Gave an interview in the middle of his own hearing. And, iirc, said some equally misleading things.

Yes, it's all a bit Ben Hunte. not rhyming slang

Also, why would a third space hospital area for trans people be a 'ghetto'?

That reminds me of that transwoman who went on This Morning a while back to complain that they had been called 'Sir' by a ticket officer at a train station. This was extra offensive because they 'always dress female' and on this particular day they were wearing a pink scarf and a blush pink coat.

Yes, that's right, blush pink. And the ticket man still got it wrong!

I suppose if you make ill-advised decisions, it doesn't stop with talking, but extends to who you're talking to.

Plus, I don't think most reputable outlets would touch it.

Having listened to a member of that board comparing lesbians rejecting penis to apartheid, my confidence in the board is pretty low. I hope that’s unfair and I hope that person was an outlier but I think she did a good job of undermining public confidence in the board.

Why would you risk it for such crappy publications such as Vice and Novara though?

I am also wondering if the mere fact that people on this thread have suggetsed BSB will send RMW into anger. Yet the TRAs and Stonewall have no problem whatosever in going after GC feminists and seeing them hounded out of their jobs.

Right side of history my arse.