Would anyone mind if I ask a question about Robin Moria White?

[rabbitwoman]

I am sure she won't mind because she used to come here often to plug her book as the definitive guide to trans law.

I just wondered if it might need considerable editing after yesterday? As it will now have to take into account the judgement in Maya Forstater 's case?

Just to add, I had not read a huge amount about Maya. I had read Robin's piece in the independent and thought that it seemed maya was transphobic, and had behaved in a dreadful way.

But I have read all about it in the past few weeks and read the whole judgement yesterday and it's taken my breath away that Robin has not been even reprimanded for what she wrote. Why not?

www.google.com/search?q=robin+moira+white+forstater&oq=robin&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j69i57j69i60.2312j0j7&client=ms-android-vf-gb-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Ekofisk

Yes, agree. If a person's gender dysphoria is so strong that they believe they are of the opposite sex then they will wish to be defined as being of the opposite sex, even though that is impossible to achieve.

If a person does not have a gender dysphoria and there is a different reason for their gender presentation, e.g. a paraphilia, then we must assume that validation is part of the desire for being perceived as of the opposite sex.

Either way, they are not female. It is not possible to change chromosomes.

@OldCrone

But if you can redefine the word “woman” (adult human female) to include men, then the next step is to redefine “female” to include males.

But then wouldn't trans people cease to exist? If there is no distinction between women and men, female and male, what is a transwoman?

If there are just people, and sex doesn't exist, then transgenderism can't exist either, can it?

I thought that was the whole point? Trans women are women and that shiny F on a new birth certificate really does mean that they are of the female sex?

And yet the two authors wrote down, in a book, in black and white forever, that deceiving a rape victim into talking to a man, could be completely acceptable.

I await to see one of the authors come and explain to us again how they are a huge advocate for women's rights. No.... I think we can safely say that in the course of a law career, one author was paid to defend women's employment rights cases.

I guess when you push to destabilise language, science and laws, truth and honesty means whatever you want it to believe.

I thought that was the whole point? Trans women are women and that shiny F on a new birth certificate really does mean that they are of the female sex?

But there has to be a definable category of woman/female which excludes men/males in order for this to be something that men who want to be women can aspire to join. Otherwise we're all just non-binary, males who want to be validated as 'women' can't achieve this goal because 'woman' is meaningless, and we're all just sexless, genderless human beings, so nobody can be 'trans'.

Their goal itself is self-contradictory. They want validation as 'women', but in trying to make this possible, they have to first make 'woman' a category which can include some males, rendering it meaningless. Doing the same thing to 'female' doesn't improve matters.

"Is a trans woman something different from a woman? But a gay woman or a black woman are still women, why not a trans woman?”

It still blows my mind everytime I read this argument. There were people making it in response to Joanne Harris's excreble 'white feminism' article, apparently without any self-awareness.

How anyone can say "If we allow that lesbians and black women are truly women, then why can we not allow that men are women too?", and still think themselves a wise, good and liberal person, is incomprehensible.

A review of the guide

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/

"Is a trans woman something different from a woman? But a gay woman or a black woman are still women, why not a trans woman?”

This says so much about what White must think of Allison Bailey.

I'm cringing especially reading the bit about toilets in schools. Are the authors really unable to work this out for themselves?

"Even a reader with little prior knowledge will be struck by the regularity with which the authors simply give up on the task of analysis"

And when you try to help them tease out their analysis by asking fairly straightforward questions, they ignore them or refuse to answer. It often appears that they don't want to attempt to set out a logical train of thought that doesn't have a semantic or logical gap in it.

And when you try to help them tease out their analysis by asking fairly straightforward questions, they ignore them or refuse to answer. It often appears that they don't want to attempt to set out a logical train of thought that doesn't have a semantic or logical gap in it.

When you ask one of the authors anything on here, you usually get told to read their book....

@EmpressWitchDoesntBurn

"Is a trans woman something different from a woman? But a gay woman or a black woman are still women, why not a trans woman?”

This says so much about what White must think of Allison Bailey.

Holy shit, that's only just hit me.

The idea of white as the default and male as the default is very firmly embedded, particularly with people of a certain generation.

That’s pretty much how I reacted when it hit me, Floral. I hope Allison & her lawyers are aware.

@EmpressWitchDoesntBurn

That’s pretty much how I reacted when it hit me, Floral. I hope Allison & her lawyers are aware.

Well, yes. I'm sure it can't strengthen a defence case to have a lawyer who views lesbian and black women in that way.

That element of the debate, which gets a regular outing on here, never fails to hit me between the eyes.

But if you point out how “othering” it is to lesbians and black women, the usual response is to double down. Rules for me but not for thee.

From memory White appeared fond of drawing an analogy with the experience of black women in South Africa under apartheid:

(extract)
"Trans individuals like myself have been quietly showing over the last 21 years since we have had a degree of legal protection that we are safe, sane contributors to society, not to be judged by our protected characteristic, just as women, ethnic and religious minorities before us and other groups have been doing. We have a right to exist in the same space as everyone else - not in some 'third space'. I am old enough to have visited aparteid South Africa and have seen a society split into 'Bloks' and 'Blankes'. Not an acceptable solution especially for someone who had had to fight for their femininity, such as it is."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3824781-Lisa-Nandy-says-child-rapists-should-be-in-women-s-prisons-if-they-identify-as-female?msgid=94013528#94013528

someone who had had to fight for their femininity,

This is a very telling, and hugely unfeminist, turn of phrase.

One also wonders if the implication is the (again deplorably racist) assumption that black women are less feminine?

“But if ginger cats and tabbies and cats with only one eye are still cats, why not a small dog?”

Even without the racism etc. it’s like a teenager’s attempt at stoned thinking just after the munchies have kicked in. Because the only thing that could possibly make it sound unidiotic is the fervent belief in the power of magical gender thinking and let’s pretend.