Sarah Phillimore and Robin Moira White interviewed by Andrew Doyle

Obviously some privileges are more important to you than others, and so are some risks; but it's not obvious to me why women should prioritise the same ones you do. Both for own sakes as women a nd also as mothers of children who consider themselves to be trans, and whose future health and happiness we are committed to. What's fair for Robin might be fair for some people but it isn't fair for everyone. It's not witchcraft to recognise that.

It's not witchcraft, but it does require a certain amount of empathy, which some people lack.

I wouldn't bother. This is someone arguing women have no right to single sex rape support in court, all above board. This is someone who argued against Allison Bailey, all above board.

This is someone who on television stood by their comment that women are 'mad' for having concerns about predatory men, and stated women's fear is an irrelevance....

The list of offensive things RMW has said and done could take us all day. They know. They don't care.

Robin, do you ever worry that you might have failed to be fair to women?

I listened carefully to the interview, and I have read quite a few of your postings. And what I don't see is "they might have a point, maybe I need to question my own point of view". What I do see is, "here is a way to attack their point of view and gloss over the weaknesses in my own argument". I guess that makes you a good lawyer - in an adversarial system law is more about picking holes in your opponent's arguments and covering your own sides' weaknesses than it is about discovering a shared truth.

Your answer to Sarah Phillimore about women lawyers was a case in point. First, you used the fact that there are some successful female lawyers (such as Sarah herself) to imply that having a male voice didn't give any advantage. That's questionable. And second you said that your own motive was that you could not risk damaging your voice by an operation, and not that you wanted to keep male privilege. That neatly took the high ground but it still doesn't rule out that your deeper male voice gives you privilege at work, however unintentionally. In which case you don't share the obstacles that women face in overcoming their lack of that privilege.

You don't face the same obstacles as women plus some extra ones for being trans. It's not additive. As a transwoman you do face obstacles, but they are different obstacles from those that women face.

And it's worth noting that the damage you have chosen not to risk to your own voice, is damage that some very young people are have chosen to risk to theirs, before they have the maturity to assess the risks that they are taking, and with a longer period to live with any damage done.

Obviously some privileges are more important to you than others, and so are some risks; but it's not obvious to me why women should prioritise the same ones you do. Both for own sakes as women a nd also as mothers of children who consider themselves to be trans, and whose future health and happiness we are committed to. What's fair for Robin might be fair for some people but it isn't fair for everyone. It's not witchcraft to recognise that.

If women don't need single sex spaces then why do men get them? Are we already living in a peaceful, gender-neutral utopia and I'm the only person still looking out for pervs, weirdos, harassers and worse when I'm vulnerable?

Cauldrons?

Only cauldrons?

What about the cats? I've got 3, Robin. THREE of the feckers. Doesn't that count for anything???

BernardBlacksMolluscs · Today 08:17
I think the point for me is that any man who claims to be a woman is demonstrating loud and clear that he has incredibly disordered views about women.

That’s not against the law or anything. I’ve worked with plenty of men with pretty weird views on women and, of necessity, muddled along OK.

but if those men get a say in women’s lives, it will not go well for women

This is such an important point. And they have been put in charge of women and children.

Robin's voice is, um, unchanged isn't it?

It is a paradox for me. As the only people who have called me a witch for the last 40+ years have been men.

Weird huh?

I wouldn’t personally. Too much like what the other bunch get up to

if someone wants to show us who they are, let ‘em I say

the punishment for making a dick of yourself on the internet is having made a dick of yourself on the internet

I wonder if it's worth complaining to RMW's professional body, regarding their cauldron comments?

Anyone else remember Robin's 'So long and thanks for all the fish' sign off?

I think the point for me is that any man who claims to be a woman is demonstrating loud and clear that he has incredibly disordered views about women.

That’s not against the law or anything. I’ve worked with plenty of men with pretty weird views on women and, of necessity, muddled along OK.

but if those men get a say in women’s lives, it will not go well for women. As we’ve seen demonstrated in that interview by Robin clearly believing that women have no right to single sex spaces and are in fact ‘mad’ for even wanting such things

They won't eat the inmates though, despite the fact that they are being locked up for the crime of eating women.

I think Robin's argument that there is no further risk is true in the sense that the fox is already in the henhouse, women are already at massive risk as they are housing us with male sex offenders. Soon they will isue GRR/ GRCs to ravening wolves who just want to peeee like a laidee.

Sorry that was meant to reply to @NotBadConsidering .

This. With knobs bells on.

If RMW is correct and all this shit is just fine and dandy because lawful, then I say we campaign to change these laws because they hurt women.

Now, where's that Denton's report...? [Rummages for secret lobbying guide]

It is also strange that someone who is living as though they are a woman is impervious to so many concerns of women and advocating against them.

A male person cannot live as though he is a woman. Male people who say they are living as women tend to live as a male fantasy of what it is to be a woman. Their concerns are male concerns. They don't understand what it is like to be a woman, but it is odd that they have no interest in trying to understand. They seem to think they know better than actual women what being a woman is like, because of their superior male brains or something. Like mansplaining womanhood to women.

Or even just TRY.

instead of have tried which probably indicates one Tuesday in September in 1984. They tried, decided it was enough of an effort and that was it. after all words can mean whatever you want in our Brave New World.

Through my working life I have tried to treat everyone properly, equally and fairly

Try harder.

I find people like this a great deal more dangerous to the rights of women and children that those impressionable young people who stand at the front of it all.

Absolutely, it is sinister.

It is also strange that someone who is living as though they are a woman is impervious to so many concerns of women and advocating against them.

I am not certain of the facts but was RMW instrumental in writing the bench book which lead to a judge penalising a victim for referring to her male attacker as he?

Who will judge the judges?

I trust it will be noted that I don’t engage in personal attacks

Exhibit A from the Bundle I’m sure you will just keep stirring your cauldrons.

As well as @FlirtsWithRhinos excellent setting out of the progression of demands, there is also the additional danger from increasing the number of people with a GRC (by a factor of 10 according to Sturgeon's estimate; more by Westminster's) and removing any vetting.

This is true even if the actual rights granted to an individual by the GRC are unchanged.

Take a different example. To work with children, you must have a DBS certificate. These are issued only after a check, and this limits the number of people who have them.

If you maintain the requirement for all people working with children to have a DBS certificate, but change the process so that anyone who sends a stamped addressed envelope gets one automatically, are you causing additional danger?

How about driving licences? Remove the theory, hazard perception, practical and medical tests. Anyone over 15 can now pick one up at a newsagent, no questions asked. Are you causing additional danger by that change?

Crikey. Cauldrons.

Robin has shown their true colours, hasn't they?