Anti-trans spin from RMW

RMW: But it was very concerning in the first place to have a suggestion debated in the Lords that said if they were to go to hospital for a broken leg, they couldn’t be accommodated on a ward consistent with their gender identity – they would either be on a ward according to their natal sex or in some trans person’s ghetto, miles away. It would have segregated trans people and non-trans people.

No RMW, it would have segregated males from females. You know, like single sex wards aimed to do!

To be fair to RMW it's Moya Lothian-McLean who doesn't know her gamut from her guantlet.

NM: In your opinion, what’s the motivation for this type of legal challenge – is it just about winning?

RM...But they think it’s worth it to bring the issue into the public domain and grow their movement. And that has happened so far.

Well, it seems to have worked so far! But it would be nice if the people who've likely been discriminated against like Maya and Allison won too. But hey, some sunlight is worth my far-right funded donations (reader- not far right, far from it, from my hard-earned salary!)

What's interesting is that Helen Joyce, Jane Clare Jones, and many others have been vocal in asking for evidence and reading as to why gender ideology should be accepted. They've even ended up steelmanning a presentation of a case in default of one being available.

One thing on which they've commented. It seems impossible for gender ideologues to even attempt to steelman the perspective of gender critical feminists who are opposed to gender ideology.

All of which brings us to RMW's predictable interpretation in that interview. However, are we surprised after seeing RMW's fist of organising the bundle and creating a coherent narrative on which all the legal teams and the tribunal might rely?

"I wouldn’t say there is coordination in the sense of an ‘anti-trans [command centre]’, but there is certainly a degree of working together among the individuals and groups involved."

Oh shit, women talk to each other!

Did she? I'm afraid I couldn't get past the malapropism of "running a gauntlet" for "running the gamut".

NM: Is it a coincidence that discrimination tribunals are becoming a battlefield for trans rights?

RW: It’s not like there’s a centre to a web of [conspiracy], but it is more like a neural net. For example, watching the Bailey case – because you, as a member of the public, can turn up and watch the case virtually – we have people like Ann Sinnott, who runs something called the Authentic Equity Alliance, who’s definitely part of the anti-trans movement.

Well we also had Jaz turned up, who likes to post on social media pictures on a bed surrounded by butt plugs. So not sure what this demonstrates apart from 'people like to turn up to watch tribunals which they're interested in'?

NM: The people at the heart of these tribunals tend to be in the professional class, a lawyer, a tax expert, and so on. Is this indicative of anything about the gender critical movement?

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."

I have no words for this section. I am, just, no words. Hey people who pack stuff for me, you've got less political space to air your views on issues of conflicting rights. Hence why we don't hear your views in these tribunals.

Good job the Ford women kept their heads down eh?

They’re made up of a loud (and often public-facing) minority, that run a gauntlet from rightwing evangelicals, in the American mould, to radical feminists

Oh dear. I think we need to reach for that famous Inigo Montoya quote here.

It's runs the gamut. "Running a guantlet" is completely not what the writer means.

"What’s said if that if you blur the boundaries as to who is ‘male’ and ‘female’, lesbians and gay men, for example, find it harder to draw a line around their particular spaces. These are minority views. But these people are very loud and very active."

Oh, RMW, I fear that the more you air these views, the less these may become 'minority views'.

And any minority view - shouldn't be loud and active? Well that sets a lot of things back!

I'm impressed that RW managed to slander so many people in one article.

"What they seek to establish is that trans people should not be accommodated as they are, or allowed to play a full part in society, and that people promoting those views should not be disadvantaged in the workplace."

'trans people should not be accommodated as they are' - translation, should not be accommodated as the sex they are not

"people promoting those views should not be disadvantaged in the workplace" - translation, women (and some men) who would like to retain women's rights and necessary single-sex spaces in some circumstances in the workplace should not be disadvantaged.

Surely this makes fraud more likely?

A Novara Media article featuring an interview with Robin White?

Well that's going to be totally impartial isn't it....

😂

Not a lawyer either, but IMHO when all evidence has been given in a tribunal, we are just left with final summaries dependent on the evidence and then the final judgement. Barristers and tribunal are not supposed to be affected by anything in the interim. Perhaps a proper lawyer can answer?

"If you allow trans people to play a full part in society, that involves the workplace"
"But secondly, we are now having questions about the extent to which one can express those rights in the workplace"

Hmm - what does this mean? Wearing what clothes you like to enable you to express how you like to dress? Or does it mean something more akin to the women's toilet's on a Sainsbury's saturday shop type-of expressing those rights?

Why this incessant insistence that we think people who identify as trans don't exist?

Adds to the victimisation aspect. And spreads fear amongst already vulnerable people.

The rules that most people stick to out of curtesy do not apply to special people, I thought you knew that?

It is definitely true that people will identify both sex and the gender they identify as.

And such a powerful voice too, on multiple levels.

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

Why this incessant insistence that we think people who identify as trans don't exist?

Oh, here we go.

Oh my god, did anyone else notice this? RMW made it so that any male abuser can access his female victim's telephone banking with HSBC.

"I’d ring HSBC trying to access to the account of Robin Moira White, and the operator would think I was a fraudster. I’d get, ‘Oh, really?’. It was getting boring, frankly. So one day I happened to be passing HSBC’s call centre and I paid them a visit. Someone quite senior came to talk to me and listened. I got a phone call the following day, and within 48 hours they’d changed the training of their call handlers to tell them that there are people whose voices don’t sound the way you might expect, and that if they can answer the security questions, they can access their account."

"They’re made up of a loud (and often public-facing) minority"
Not sure about that minority, Moya, once we detail the actual issue!
'Often public-facing'? What are we meant to do, face the wall with such disgraceful thinking such as 'biological sex is immutable' and hide away from the public!

Can it really be appropriate for a person so prominently involved in a major case to be commenting while the tribunal's still out? And will such a display of irrational partisanship really advance RMW's career? Would you wish to engage a barrister who is so focussed on their side of the argument that they fail to see the other pov and its evidence, or how ridiculous they sound. Not sure this is a clever move.