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

@BenCoopersSupportWren exactly. The problem TRAs, Stonewall etc are facing is how do they distance themselves from rapists whilst promoting self ID.

@MuffinWoman thanks to your link I’ve now seen the video. You are right it’s presented in such a way as to appear reasonable and fact based when it’s not.

A neutral approach would be to say GI and GC beliefs are both protected under the Religion & Belief PC. The manifestation of both beliefs can be lawful or unlawful etc. These are possible areas to consider e.g. respecting peoples pronouns, providing single sex and unisex facilities etc.

Crikey haven't police requested that people stop speculating online about the details surrounding this young person's death? Threads have been deleted on here for doing as much. You'd think that this individual, being a lawyer, would know better.

That is rather like saying how awful it is that someone's feelings have been hurt by a demand to stop kicking them in the shins.

The issue is not how hurtful the criticism and negative attention feels.

The issue is that kicking people in the shins is unacceptable, and the one being kicked cannot reasonably be expected to just submit to it quietly and let the kicker carry on undisturbed in hurting them.

You may not like it but RMW does have a point, albeit one they have also contributed to, which is that people with gender dysphoria are being disproportionately impacted by the current trans vs GC debate.

It's almost as if TRAs letting fetishists under the trans umbrella has backfired on the original people they purported to support...🤔

@MuffinWoman I have not been able to see the video. I should have referenced the Independent article pp had linked to as that was what I was responding to.

As an HR professional I agree with you that advice on legal and HR/employer sites should ensure the legal position is accurate and not making stereotypical assumptions. You are correct “don’t panic” if you have a GC employee is wholly inappropriate.

MuffinWoman · Today 15:06

Totally offensive and there would be a massive outcry. I'm shocked that this well respected company is promoting this inaccurate and offensive content as the law.

I wonder if it is, in fact, in breach of the Equalities Act?

Diamondsmile · Today 14:54

However, I also believe that a very small number of people have gender dysphoria and they should be treated with dignity and respect.

Question anyone here and you'll find the same response: go on, wear what you want, give yourself a female name, go out and about in safety, but be respectful to women.

RichardBarrister · Today 14:54

I think the fact that Robin is permanently set to broadcast mode rather than receive somewhat hampers Robins ability to hear and understand our argument.

That's evident and I am convinced that Robyn doesn't want to hear counter arguments, because Robyn is utterly convinced of Robyn's rectitude and therefore, doesn't want to do anything other than hector, harangue and browbeat.

One thing that concerns me, and concerned me at the time, was Maya and Helen’s behaviour when sitting behind RMW at the Women and Equalities Select Committee.

The optics of how that looked were not good and I felt disrespectful to RMW and others giving evidence.

I am also concerned by some of the language used on MN threads where RMW is also posting where at times it feels like deliberate goading or vitriolic which is unpleasant to read.

RMW is open enough to post under their own name, unlike most of us who use the anonymity offered by sites like MN. RMW is also willing to engage in debate in controlled environment like TV, committees etc.

I am not saying RMW hasn’t responded in kind and I was appalled RMW posted on IamSarah’s thread, it was completely unprofessional and inappropriate.

You may not like it but RMW does have a point, albeit one they have also contributed to, which is that people with gender dysphoria are being disproportionately impacted by the current trans vs GC debate.

I do not agree with a lot of RMWs points but on occasion they have made a fair point. The Article is written from a naturally biased position but some points are fair. Others are not.

I have said on many threads I am GC and believe sex is immutable and that single sex spaces mean biological sex.

However, I also believe that a very small number of people have gender dysphoria and they should be treated with dignity and respect.

I do not believe children should be given puberty blockers, cross sex hormones or surgery. Personally I would like to see the age of consent to be 21 but realistically see it being set at 18 .

There are several area that RMW (and others) fails to address, one is predominantly biological males with paraphillia’s including AGP, voyeurism, exhibitionism etc. using the trans umbrella to enable their fetishes. This widening of the trans umbrella is doing untold harm to women and people with gender dysphoria. These people sit between rapists who claim to be trans and people with gender dysphoria.

The second is accurate data collection about the impact of medical treatment, transition and de-transition, crimes etc.

There are others but this is turning into war and peace.

…It's very clearly not the case and if Robin actually read any of the threads which Robin comes on here to patronise and proselytise on, Robin would know that. The beliefs I do not support is that a) gender identity is a ubiquitous experience and b) having a gender identity different from their natal sex, entitles one to access to spaces reserved for the opposite sex. This is completely different from what the damaging and slanderous falsehood which Robin is promoting and Robin should be ashamed. Robin is a dangerous person who should not be allowed to make videos like this.

I think the fact that Robin is permanently set to broadcast mode rather than receive somewhat hampers Robins ability to hear and understand our argument.

The actions of this barrister along with other law professionals seem designed to misrepresent the law to their own ends.

I wish there wasn’t an apparent special exemption to be allow normally unacceptable behaviour from the Bar Standards Board for a certain group of individuals. Surely lawyers, if pontificating on the law in public, have to at least try to get it right?

WarriorNun · Today 12:24

RMW didn't come across as especially knowledgeable nor was able to give convincing arguments in that parliamentary thingy last week.

No and when they was here a couple of weeks back, they was rude, bossy and dismissive, not to mention their cauldrons flouncing shot. They is a bad faith debater, ascribing positions and opinions to them's opponents, which the opponents have never expressed.

It's little wonder that they have now come up with their latest pile of reeking bullshit.

Actually you were right as I hadn't realised it was free to view. They're not normally.

Evidence of how valuable RMW's contribution is.

My mistake, should have read your OP more carefully.

I also massively disagree with Robin’s characterisation of these beliefs as ‘challenging’ or ‘extreme’. It’s a bit like a flat earthed saying that those who believe the earth is round have difficult beliefs. Being gender critical is the default position.

This is the type of gaslighting reversal they are masters of.

This is one of the things that frustrates me most about this whole mess. There is just so much bad faith.
If RMW laid out actual gender critical beliefs and criticised those, then I'd be very happy to see it, but it's not.
All 'criticism' of GC feminist beliefs that I've seen involves setting up straw man after straw man and knocking them down. I don't think I've ever seen our beliefs actually represented by the other side.
All that does is generate conflict and it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

I don't think that's how copyright works. Just tell us what they said, in your own words.

It's generally considered unhelpful to affirm a delusional state, in all areas of psychology apart from gender misalignment, as far as I can see. This is pink, sparkly exception to the rule. Because reasons.

Though I don’t care if they have some inner gender identity- that is up to them - so long as we don’t have to pretend it changes sex or that single sex spaces, sports, discrimination, words etc are not based on sex.

I don’t think men who identify as women should be supported in a belief that they are women, and I am not just referring to by myself here. They are still men and that should be recognised by all.

I disagree with the statement that gender critical beliefs entail that “those people who say that they have a gender identity that is different from their natal sex are wrong and should not be supported in having that belief.”This is like saying ‘those people who say they believe in god are wrong and should not be supported in having that belief.”

Exactly. Christians have the right to believe that Jesus is the son of God and that he turned water into wine. They just don't have the right to require the rest of us to believe it.