Any lawyers seen the video of RMW "explaining" GC beliefs?

Who looks at that clip and wavers away from the GC side of the debate because of their behaviour then?! No one, but imagine if that clip had been shown when introducing Sarah at the start of the debate with Robin how would neutrals and those new to the subject view Sarah?

Who is Sarah who you are referring to here? It was Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce who were sitting behind Robin.

Yes, I saw the clip at the time I thought that could comeback to bite them.

But how is it coming back to bite them? It’s a delusional concept. Who’s doing the biting? TRAs who hate them anyway? Are you seriously suggesting that such an occurrence would have those people wavering move away from their side of their debate? That line in Robin’s article is just one line amongst many of nonsense. It won’t persuade anyone. Either TRAs will love Robin’s article or anyone with compassion will see it for the horrendous attempt to hijack a child’s death.

My point was that once a clip like that exists it can be manipulated and twisted to suit a specific agenda.

Who cares? Maya and Helen won’t. They’re both, as we all are, completely used to TRAs manipulating and twisting what they want for their agenda. It’s so trite.

As the responses have shown GC people do have different interpretations of gender dysphoria proving my point.

Then perhaps TRAs and AGPs should stop clouding the issue by claiming "but muh gender dysphoria!" in every situation in which they want to get their own way.

I believe GD exists. I don't believe falsely promising people, especially children, that they can change sex or performing surgery to turn them into a pale facsimile of the opposite sex is the appropriate treatment for it. If indulging their delusion is appropriate, why are we not offering bariatric surgery to people with anorexia? Why do we not encourage people with schizophrenic auditory hallucinations that the voices are real and they should do as they say?

I didn’t say they were mocking Robin, I said the optics on their behaviour did not look good. Have you ever been in a parliamentary committee meeting ? Trust me observers don’t “call out” someone who is being questioned, that type of behaviour is not appropriate.

Sometimes people laugh at inappropriate times. Maya and Helen must eat drink and sleep this nonsense and are probably just completely worn down by the farce of it all. As women's rights are incrementally removed perhaps the only thing left to us will be our sense of humour and our ability to laugh in the face of absurdity.

@NotBadConsidering The optics🤣🤣 Really? Who looks at that clip and wavers away from the GC side of the debate because of their behaviour then?! No one, but imagine if that clip had been shown when introducing Sarah at the start of the debate with Robin how would neutrals and those new to the subject view Sarah?

Ammunition for Robin’s article? Yes, I saw the clip at the time I thought that could comeback to bite them. The video clip does not contain background, context etc. which allows people to put their own spin on it. A completely bizarre example I know but in 2006 Andy Murray very clearly jokingly said about a World Cup match he was supporting who ever England were playing against. 3 weeks ago someone said to me he was deadly serious and that they don’t like him because of that one comment. My point was that once a clip like that exists it can be manipulated and twisted to suit a specific agenda.

Firstly, Robin is more than capable of plucking whatever Robin wants out of the air to make a point. Agreed, but why help them.

Second, of all the things in that article, that’s the bit that stands out? Not the part where Robin states we don’t know the motive for the murder, but then writes an entire article blaming “anti trans” activists? No, and I have said the article is biased and I disagreed with much of what was written but I did agree with some points. I can be GC and still find things I agree with on the other side of the argument.

So if women “behaved” Robin wouldn’t be able to pad out such an awful article with their behaviour? You are twisting my words. The rest would be ok though? No.

I didn’t say they were mocking Robin, I said the optics on their behaviour did not look good. Have you ever been in a parliamentary committee meeting ? Trust me observers don’t “call out” someone who is being questioned, that type of behaviour is not appropriate. The fact they appeared to be sitting behind Robin giggling for what ever reason looked unprofessional and sadly the clip is likely to turn up at unhelpful times. It certainly gave Robin ammunition for the article.

The optics🤣🤣 Really? Who looks at that clip and wavers away from the GC side of the debate because of their behaviour then?!

Ammunition for Robin’s article? Firstly, Robin is more than capable of plucking whatever Robin wants out of the air to make a point. Second, of all the things in that article, that’s the bit that stands out? Not the part where Robin states we don’t know the motive for the murder, but then writes an entire article blaming “anti trans” activists?

So if women “behaved” Robin wouldn’t be able to pad out such an awful article with their behaviour? The rest would be ok though?

Ok.

@Datun @howmanybicycles bottom line, no one knows what causes gender dysphoria in pre-school age children and I understand studies over a long period (50 years) have shown this can for many resolve itself with the onset of puberty. I personally don’t believe pre-school age children are homophobic but accept you and others disagree.

Those studying the very recent phenomenon of rapid onset gender dysphoria at or around puberty with no previous signs of gender dysphoria have suggested their gender dysphoria may of a different variety with potentially different causes. (Social contagion is an important factor in other conditions starting in adolescence, and would therefore have to be investigated as a possible mechanism to developing the condition.) I agree with you that homophobia may be a contributing factor for rapid onset gender dysphoria.

Why do you expect me to answer that? I don't know exactly but the narratives which society has about gender are clearly indicated. My point was about the fact that you suggested that homophones does not cause gender dysphoria. Of course it can.

@NotBadConsidering So what if people bring up the events of the Bailey vs Stonewall hearing. Should that behaviour be glossed over now?

You mean use a slur that implies a professional failing to goad one person when it has been repeatedly stated they were not responsible.

Robin has a discordant level of influence compared to the rest of us. We don’t get to appear on tv, or write articles in national newspapers. I agree most of us don’t have that profile but some do e.g. Sarah Phillimore is on MN and has appeared on TV etc. There are other high profile GC people who post on MN and in the media.

I didn’t say Robin should stop talking about law matters. I said if Robin wants to talk about law matters publicly then Robin should expect to be criticised for it.

Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood your point.

During the hearing Robin stated something that was absolute nonsense and Maya called him out on it and then giggled at themselves for doing so. They were not mocking Robin.
I didn’t say they were mocking Robin, I said the optics on their behaviour did not look good. Have you ever been in a parliamentary committee meeting ? Trust me observers don’t “call out” someone who is being questioned, that type of behaviour is not appropriate. The fact they appeared to be sitting behind Robin giggling for what ever reason looked unprofessional and sadly the clip is likely to turn up at unhelpful times. It certainly gave Robin ammunition for the article.

Robin gets the respect Robin deserves.

Quite.

I still haven't had an answer to my question of what causes the gender dysphoria that is not caused by all the, er, known causes.

Having gender dysphoria for a long time is not a cause.

In which case, it's ridiculously naive to suggest that true gender dysphoria has nothing fo do with homophobia. Of course it could.

I did read the thread. I was on the thread at the time. The responses were all directed at Robin’s words and Robin’s actions. Robin is a public figure with a public profile appearing on tv, who gets to write articles exploiting the death of a child in national newspapers. The numbers argument - one of Robin vs all of us is unfair - is absolute bullshit. Robin has a discordant level of influence compared to the rest of us. We don’t get to appear on tv, or write articles in national newspapers.

Robin (gamely) appears here. Robin expresses one opinion. Many others express opposing opinions. This is just like any other thread on Mumsnet, like AIBU.

I didn’t say Robin should stop talking about law matters. I said if Robin wants to talk about law matters publicly then Robin should expect to be criticised for it. During the hearing Robin stated something that was absolute nonsense and Maya called him out on it and then giggled at themselves for doing so. They were not mocking Robin.

So what if people bring up the events of the Bailey vs Stonewall hearing. Should that behaviour be glossed over now?

It is utter gaslighting bullshit to claim RMW is any sort of victim. Robin is using a position of influence as a barrister and trans activist to advocate for the destruction of women’s rights and the medicalisation of children and is prepared to use the death of a child to advance that agenda. Robin gets the respect Robin deserves.

Seriously? To many women here people like RMW epitomise the misogyny of trans ideology.

RMW claims to be a woman but, in my opinion, has nothing but contempt for women. Indeed, has admitted that they would never change their deep, male voice as it lends them power as a barrister. Picking and choosing aspects of 'gender' to further a detrimental ideology, and their own career.

RMW works in opposition to women trying to preserve their rights, spaces and dignity.

You are neatly demonstrating an aspect of gender ideology that damages women. And what the 'gender' means in gender critical and why we're critical of it.

That when they go low, we go high. Why the fuck should women go high? What is it about women that means they have to be more pure, better behaved, and appear nicer, than the men trying to destroy their rights?

Could it be their gender? Gender - the expectations and roles that women are supposed to fulfil, based on their sex?

@SinnerBoy I have repeatedly stated I do not agree with the individual but I also don’t agree with goading them.

We had a 'When they go low we go high' move on here a few years ago. I supported it at the time but I now think I got it wrong - posters here have to jump through enough hoops without policing them even further.

However I do also think that every time Robin posts on here we give them exactly the reaction they're looking for: our attention.

Diamondsmile · Today 00:13

Which started with “come back Robin, come and have a conversation with the 87 witches. Give us your thoughts on this from the above article.”.

Now what could have caused that? Surely you read the spoiled brat's flouncing shot about leaving the thread contributors to their cauldrons? Didn't you? Don't you have a problem with them's misogynistic comments?

TheBiologyStupid · Yesterday 20:22

Is pointing out RMW's absence from this thread tempting fate?

Robyn had better bring a plate, for their arse to be handed to they, like so often before.

@NotBadConsidering If you read that full thread there were a lot of personal insults about RMW prior to their final post. I have stated several times RMW responds in kind, it is the number of posters making personal comments vs 1 that I am uncomfortable with.

Why should RMW as a barrister stop talking about law matters and not all of us? I agree RMW does not always correctly interpret the law and I have no issue with anyone challenging that.

The opinion piece was unpleasant but was accurate about the names RMW has been called and the behaviour of Sarah and Maya at the committee hearing. What ever you think of RMW, the optics of repeated personal insults and poor behaviour in a committee meeting do not show GC people in a good light.

I think the quality of the debate suffers when posters stray from the facts, law etc and into personal insults (both sides do this). As on other threads some posters on here started using a very specific word to goad RMW onto the thread and I objected to that. Had they politely asked a regular poster for their view I would have had no issue.

Michelle Obama was right when she said when they go low you go high. Stick to the issues being debated without personal slurs and goading comments.

Actually, that post is indicative of how RMW insulted posters here with a misogynistic slur and doesn’t have the guts to come back and defend Robinself. It’s not goady. Goady is frequently turning up threads, lying, insulting, then leaving.

If Robin doesn’t want to be directly addressed as an individual on threads here, Robin should refrain from publicly speaking on law matters, and from getting disgusting opinion pieces published in national newspapers. I doubt Robin can refrain from such matters.

Besides, Robin isn’t the only TRA to be named in such a manner. It’s common to ask of the whereabouts of regular TRA posters who conveniently disappear and seem to ignore threads that prove they’re wrong. Like when the Wi Spa suspect was confirmed to be a male arrested for indecent exposure. Tumbleweeds on that thread.

I wonder why?🤔

@PaterPower sadly I agree it is unlikely to see those responsible held to account.

What happened at GIDS is horrific and as I have stated, possibly on other threads, will end up with a public enquiry like the infected blood enquiry

The infected blood inquiry which took years (many years after the problems were known) to get started and has been running since 2018? I’m sceptical it’ll achieve anything worthwhile.

Nobody will be prosecuted for their ‘mistakes’ in continuing to source blood products from infected prisoners in the States. It’s unlikely that any living individual Doctors, civil servants or politicians will be named in their final report, let alone face punishment for their actions, which included the deliberate hiding of test results from patients.

If their ever is an Inquiry set up for GIDS then I’d put money on the doctors and other HCPs involved not facing sanctions either.

Hell, I’ll be pleasantly surprised if the conclusions drawn from the CASS report result in actual improvements, if for no other reasons than the NHS is still largely captured AND there’s no money to provide proper MH services as it is.

I should imagine Whittle is grieving for the time when transactivism was still working successfully under the radar, when those who had self-restraint were at the forefront of quiet lobbying in many different places, and before the reality that the demands being made mostly benefit men who are sexually excited by being in women’s spaces had become obvious.

Perhaps Whittle thought it could all be controlled.

I wonder whether reality has actually hit home, or whether what was being pushed was always understood to be male rights activism, but considered to be worth doing anyway as it was only women who would be hurt.