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

If I buy the RMW book I can put it next to Naomi Wolf's Outrages, assuming I buy that one too.

To be fair I think anyone is entitled to an opinion, whether that be on Maya Forstater's case or on barristers attempting to engage with adversaries on social media. It's the way some opinions can find an outlet through mainstream broadsheets while others can only be written in secret code that feels inequitable.

As for the book, if The Works pick it up and it comes down to under £2, I'll buy it in case there are any new car anecdotes.

True. Obviously if a barrister went online under their own name and commented about a legal case, if they were being professional and responsible they would be scrupulous about the information they posted.

I'm regretting clicking on the Amazon link - the 'more to explore' section has a fascinating collection of books, which I presume tend to be bought alongside.

@InspectorHastings

I'm regretting clicking on the Amazon link - the 'more to explore' section has a fascinating collection of books, which I presume tend to be bought alongside.

One of the suggestions is the "Mystical Saints Colouring Book".

I think they really ought to provide a discount for the 318 pages (at least) that are out of date.

It's certainly a bold choice. To nail ones opinion on a contested point in law in a book that quickly dates when that view is ruled incorrect. Maybe this is a common theme in legal books. The only ones I read contain actual case law, occasionally when it's relevant to a case I'm looking at. Those tend to be more informative on points of law that are required to build a case etc. Beyond that, I can't say that I generally read books like this one.

In Ms White's case I'd be very worried about the possible reputational damage I might incur if I wrote something misleading about a legal case in a national newspaper. After all, Ms White's job is to understand the law and represent it correctly.

It's worth remembering that the original judge in the Forstater case was relatively junior, whereas the one who heard the appeal was a High Court judge: more senior, and with a better grasp of the law - as you can see from reading both judgements.

It reminds me of the criticism of Stonewall, ie that they've been giving advice based on how they want the law to be rather than how it actually is.

As I've said, I don't really object to that Independent piece - it's out there now for everyone to see. However I think the least they can do is offer Maya Forstater a right of reply.

It's worth remembering that the original judge in the Forstater case was relatively junior, whereas the one who heard the appeal was a High Court judge: more senior, and with a better grasp of the law - as you can see from reading both judgements.

I've seen a few comments from barristers in re: Choudhury's judgment that it's plain to see why none of his judgments have ever been appealed - and that he's a hot tip for the Court of Appeal and higher positions.

You’ve got to feel a bit sorry for RMW. The book has only just come out and it’s already totally incorrect on the law. Must be so infuriating.

@Leanandmean31

You’ve got to feel a bit sorry for RMW. The book has only just come out and it’s already totally incorrect on the law. Must be so infuriating.

I'm sure Naomi Wolf can commiserate & offer support. Her book got pulped, such was the extent of her errors in her book. It must be incredibly humiliating to see work you spend countless hours writing & checking, only to then see a chunk of it be completely undermined by a land mark judgement that settles the arguments.

If a key part of someone's legal book is about an upcoming legal judgement, it's a good idea to present both sides fairly and if they're going to pontificate on the outcome, to do so from a position informed by legal knowledge and expertise and not an affiliation to one side over the other.

Yes I’m sure Naomi can offer a shoulder. They can discuss how this is all a right-wing white supremacist conspiracy theory orchestrated by some British women on a parenting website.

Just remembering that delicious BBC interview with Naomi Wolf where her huge mistake was revealed.

@nauticant

If a key part of someone's legal book is about an upcoming legal judgement, it's a good idea to present both sides fairly and if they're going to pontificate on the outcome, to do so from a position informed by legal knowledge and expertise and not an affiliation to one side over the other.

It would indeed. I wonder how many times ‘not worthy of respect in a democratic society’ appears in the book.

Your opening post is now on Twitter! @rabbitwoman

@rabbitwoman

*spell

Sheeeesh!

🤣

I'm surprised Robin hasn't commented. Being an avid reader of this board.

@Mollyollydolly

I'm surprised Robin hasn't commented. Being an avid reader of this board.

To be fair, the ruling is recent. I wonder if the publishing house has requested an erratum that they will host online to take the ruling into account - and publicise at all good booksellers etc.?

If RMW is working on (an) erratum/errata then that might be quite time-consuming, not only wrt the specific chapter but other references within the book.

It is worth watching the end of the evidence session for a bit of a finely tuned legal gotcha. Who knew.

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fb12feef-6d41-457a-a102-ea59813bb583

Q68 Robin Moira White: Absolutely. The definition in the Equality Act is that a woman is a female of any age and a man is a male of any age. Forgive me, Karon’s analysis is perfectly intellectually valid, but a different analysis—and we haven’t tried this through—is that all that those definitions do is say that a girl is a woman and a boy is a man. ELA’s view is that there is a complete lack of clarity about that in the Act, so working out who is in which sex for the purposes of the Act is still something that needs to be clarified either in terms of litigation or in more legislation

@WhatyoutalkingaboutWillis

Your opening post is now on Twitter! *@rabbitwoman*

Ooooo.....

takes a bow

I will take a look..... 😉

@Melroses

No idea

It says you can read the first chapter for free here www.lawbriefpublishing.com/product/transgenderlaw/

It's "All about trans" 🙄

Just read the first few paragraphs and it’s claims are not even referenced/footnoted!

Surely that’s A Level essay standard practice, never mind so-called professional lawyer?!

The bias is also astounding... RMW says:

Life can be difficult for so-called de-transitioners, as they may have had treatments or interventions which make that return incomplete or unsatisfactory.

What’s the betting that RMW does not make any remark about the results and effectiveness of treatments/interventions in order to transition in the first place?