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

No one, trans or gender critical person, should be discriminating, harassing or intimidating other people because of who they are.

This is good to hear. Thanks

@horsespirit

All this was said about gay and lesbian people and same sex marriage. Their existence or Union does not harm or interfere with other people's rights. Rights are not a pie to be divided. No one, trans or gender critical person, should be discriminating, harassing or intimidating other people because of who they are.

Rights are regularly in conflict. It's why Human Rights lawyers are in demand and well paid. So in that respect yes they can be like pie and courts have to make decisions on how they should be apportioned out.

I tried to look at that tweet but the tweeter has blocked me - still proud face

Cool to see Robin reply. Would like her to defend that awful piece in the independent if she ever comes back...

Rights are not a pie to be divided.

But the right of women to single sex spaces cannot coexist with the alleged right of biologically male people to be seen as women and allowed access to those formerly single sex spaces.

The two just cannot coexist.

So which group gets to have the right they want?

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Are you still entitled to your beliefs now that you know what profound distress and offence they cause me? How I feel they contribute to a hostile working and indeed living environment for women?

Would you like to consider my question and perhaps answer it, horsespirit? It’s an interesting thought experiment is all.

You still don’t seem to have answered my question, horsespirit. You know that the belief that TWAW causes me profound distress and real offence. Do you still feel entitled to express your beliefs, knowing that?

@horsespirit

All this was said about gay and lesbian people and same sex marriage. Their existence or Union does not harm or interfere with other people's rights. Rights are not a pie to be divided. No one, trans or gender critical person, should be discriminating, harassing or intimidating other people because of who they are.

Rights and pie? This is a very simplistic way of putting it. I would be willing to use this as a simile with primary school children, but it's wholly unsuitable for adults.

Rights often actually are pie, and the purpose of litigation is to work out what a fair share of the pie per person actually is.

Consider that my right to swing my arms around all over the place finishes if I am going to hit someone in the face... Or that is to say, I am not entitled to all the airspace...

Or, perhaps, comsider the history of suffrage. Let us suppose a society where only men, over 30, over a certain income are entitled to vote. In a borough of 10,000 adults, only 10 meet these criteria. This means each of these men actually constitutes 10% of the electorate by himself. So, any potential politician has to gain the confidence of more of these ten individuals than any other candidate. That is enormous power over the political process!

Naturally, the other 4990 men would like the vote too, and they're campaigning for it. Are you going to tell the first ten that extending the vote to the other 4990 men won't reduce their share of the pie? Because they will laugh in your face. Extending the vote to all adult men in the borough means slicing the pie 5,000 ways instead of ten, and the first ten men are going to lose most of their currently unfairly huge slices.

When the 5,000 women in the borough propose they be entitled to vote, that means slicing the pie into 10,000 slices. Those 5,000 men will find their influence over the election halved.

That is why universal suffrage has been so hard to gain, all across the world. The people with the pie weren't stupid enough to fall for "rights aren't pie" and not see that their share was going to be smaller from now on.

For anyone who hasn't read it as yet, Jane Clare Jones has a thoughtful discussion: GAY RIGHTS AND TRANS RIGHTS – A COMPARE AND CONTRAST

What I want to do here is think through why the concept of ‘discrimination-as-phobia’ worked for the gay rights movement, and why, despite superficial similarities, it doesn’t accurately capture what is at stake in the trans rights debate, and actually serves as a tool of political propaganda and obfuscation to push that agenda through. That is, I’m going to argue that accusations of ‘homophobia’ were a politically powerful and basically on-the-money part of gay rights discourse, while the use of ‘transphobia’ is an inaccurate parallel which grossly distorts public perceptions of the issues involved in the trans rights debate, and is doing so in the service of actually preventing that debate taking place.

So, to get down to it. The discourse of ‘homophobia’ fundamentally relies on the idea that gay-people are discriminated against on the basis of moral disgust. And inside that are two more interwoven ideas. One, that moral disgust is not a legitimate basis for telling people what not to do. (Correct) Especially not when your disgust-feels are causing serious harm to other people. (Also correct) And even more especially given that moral disgust is a nasty, vicious emotion that tends to shade very easily into violence (and I mean that in the old-fashioned sense of ‘literal violence’). Two, that because discrimination against homosexuality was entirely mediated by moral disgust, there was, in fact, no legitimate basis for that discrimination, and all objections were, effectively, moral disgust in drag. That is, the success of gay rights was substantially down to disseminating the idea that that were no good reasons for anyone to object to their agenda…

janeclarejones.com/2018/09/09/gay-rights-and-trans-rights-a-compare-and-contrast/

@horsespirit

The judge said in Maya case:-

"The judgement does not mean that those with gender critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity"

The judgement also includes this attached section:

What do I think the judge inferred? It seems he said that you can believe what you like as long as it it doesn't hit the threshold of Nazism. a reasonably high bar to be fair.

You are protected in your belief in much the same way that flat earth believers, anti-vaxers, race realists and others are.A protected belief but, not one that is to be any more than tolerated. That protection becomes a bit shaky the moment you start to manifest that belief in your actions especially if they impede in the comfort of others.

Unusually for a judgement of this kind, the judge seemed to spend quite a bit of time explaining what the judgement didn't allow and went to some lengths to explain himself with regards to future harassment. Perhaps he wasn't confident that MF and co would be able to resist misrepresenting what was said, who knows?

Sadly, It's a shame to see so much money being spent in recent weeks in our courts with an outcome that suggests that, it isn't legal to blanket ban trans people from single sex services (the unreported AEA) and you can think what you like about trans people but, you still just have to treat them as you have been doing with respect. (MF) .

Meanwhile, whilst everyone is fighting amongst themselves, the Tories are stripping vital funding from the services that protect the vulnerable.

I know if you live in Surrey or the Home Counties that there is a good chance you will support the likes of Truss and Boris et.al but, if not, ask yourself, what do their plans mean for you?

It was an employment tribunal. I can "misgender", whatever that means, as much as I like outside of any situation that is going to lead to an employment tribunal.

What do I think the judge inferred? It seems he said that you can believe what you like as long as it it doesn't hit the threshold of Nazism. a reasonably high bar to be fair.

And the judge said believing in biological reality is in “no way” equivalent to Nazism or totalitarianism.

You are protected in your belief in much the same way that flat earth believers, anti-vaxers, race realists and others are.A protected belief but, not one that is to be any more than tolerated.

How very sneaky, to equate biological reality with science denial, when the opposite is true. It’s not gender critical beliefs that deny science, that’s for sure .

If you want to continue this analogy, if I am adamant that the Earth is in fact an oblate spheroid, and a Flat Earther is upset by that, is my protection shaky because of the discomfort I’ve created in that Flat Earther?

Perhaps he wasn't confident that MF and co would be able to resist misrepresenting what was said, who knows?

Ooh, a bit more sneakiness, slurring Maya with a speculative shrug. You are naughty.

Sadly, It's a shame to see so much money being spent in recent weeks in our courts with an outcome that suggests that, it isn't legal to blanket ban trans people from single sex services (the unreported AEA) and you can think what you like about trans people but, you still just have to treat them as you have been doing with respect. (MF)

Yes it is sad that a woman had to go to court to demonstrate biological facts are worthy of a reasonable society. Utterly bonkers that anyone thinks differently. Robin Moira White clearly does, and wrote as such in the article about which this thread is about, but Robin hasn’t explained how they erred.

And again a sneaky slur on Maya, suggesting she didn’t treat people with respect originally. Of course you can quote what she said that was disrespectful?

Meanwhile, whilst everyone is fighting amongst themselves, the Tories are stripping vital funding from the services that protect the vulnerable.

But thankfully, due to campaigning, legal cases, hard work and challenges, the Tories have no plans to further strip protections from vulnerable women, whereas the Labour Party would do so in a jiffy were they elected tomorrow (Ha!). This is important, unless you don’t think protecting vulnerable women and women’s rights is important of course.

I know if you live in Surrey or the Home Counties that there is a good chance you will support the likes of Truss and Boris et.al but, if not, ask yourself, what do their plans mean for you?

Interesting reverse snobbery, assuming that only those comfortable, middle class Tory voters are concerned about this, and working class people living in the rest of the country should be worried about other stuff. “Oi! Working class people! You’re not supposed to care about THAT, you’re supposed to care about THIS you mindless idiots! Vote for us!”

And people wonder why the Labour Party is struggling 😆.

So what do you think about what Robin wrote and how the judgment shows that Robin was wrong to write that in the Independent?

If I had a penny for every time someone bobs up on here and gets the facts of this judgement arse about face, I’d have enough to buy the book by now

This judgement was about Maya’s rights, not about those of her imaginary transgender co worker. Her beliefs are protected, and her right to continue her employment while holding those beliefs has been clarified.

when Maya gets sent back to the ET the manifestation of her beliefs with get tested

I’m really looking forward to seeing how her employers are going to play this one: having exerted themselves so much to prove that her beliefs are wholly unacceptable and that just her holding them is enough for her to be let go, they will now have to pivot and make those beliefs so unremarkable and bland that they didn’t in fact let her go for manifesting those beliefs, but for something completely different and hitherto unexplained...or that she manifested those acceptable beliefs so vilely that she created a hostile environment for transgender people at her work who don’t even exist 😱

Fun times ahead, either way. Lots of scope for legal commentary.

I’m really looking forward to seeing how her employers are going to play this one: having exerted themselves so much to prove that her beliefs are wholly unacceptable and that just her holding them is enough for her to be let go, they will now have to pivot and make those beliefs so unremarkable and bland that they didn’t in fact let her go for manifesting those beliefs, but for something completely different and hitherto unexplained...or that she manifested those acceptable beliefs so vilely that she created a hostile environment for transgender people at her work who don’t even exist 😱

Oh, that sounds like a difficult argument to make, doesn't it.

Perhaps they'll just settle. This whole thing has been embarrassing enough for them (among the non-extremist vast majority of the population).

You wouldn't want your presence to stifle reviews (good or bad) would you Robin.

You would have to read it first. The comments above make abundantly clear that no-one commenting has read it, especially the relevant chapter. That would seem to be a bit of a handicap, IMHO.

Pity transactivists didn’t extend the same courtesy to JK Rowling’s recent publications.

The bias is also astounding...

Personally I don’t find it remotely surprising. To give another example, you only have to look at the make-up of WPATH to see that the chances of them creating an unbiased, evidence-based review of the medical facts are not high. Patient’s views are important in medicine, but they need to be seen through the lens of doctors who have the capability of standing back and seeing the wider perspective.

I don’t why Robin expects us to read it. If I want to read Robin’s personal opinions that are often flawed, don’t stand up to questioning, and watch tumbleweeds go by why Robin fails to return to answer questions directly about things Robin has misrepresented, I can just hang out here and do it for free [shrug].

It's been really interesting to see how the dialogue used by trans activists has changed in the last short while in desperate attempts to denigrate women, particularly in the light of recent events (University of Essex report, Maya ruling etc).

'No debate' has turned into 'no evidence' and the mere idea of backing up an argument with evidence and sources is derided (for....reasons).

Believing in reality is now conflated with movements like the flat earthers, who...don't believe in reality.

It's actually quite amusing to watch. It's a desperate grasping at straws.

You wouldn't want your presence to stifle reviews (good or bad) would you Robin.

You would have to read it first

I thought I had written book and article rather than just book. No edit button here.
And many have read the article. Not sure I've ever seen a journalist appear here in a thread discussing an article in the nationals where the author did this. It may have happened but I could have missed it.

Purgatory That is such a good demolition of the “rights aren’t pie” argument. I have lots of examples I use myself, but yours is perfect! Might nick.

@Orangecircling

It was an employment tribunal. I can "misgender", whatever that means, as much as I like outside of any situation that is going to lead to an employment tribunal.

Unless you mean that you are indifferent to any consequence that is not an employment tribunal, it's feasible that you would still encounter legal blocks or restrictions.

Several recent cases that involve Twitter would indicate that you can not. Likewise the recent appeal from police in Bristol for a street incident involving misgendering language would suggest that they would disagree with you.

The ETBB that is used in English courts has been interpreted to indicate that everyone should use preferred pronouns etc.

@horsespirit I can that you’re not legally trained from the way you spell judgment (as well as from the contents of your comments) but let me tell you that many rights are just like pie. They require a balancing exercise by the courts and legislature. That’s what most of the human rights jurisprudence is about - how to balance the rights (or how to cut the pie). I do get alarmed when I hear actual human rights lawyers saying it though. The only rights that aren’t pie are the absolute ones like right to life and freedom from torture. This most definitely doesn’t fall into that category.

You are protected in your belief in much the same way that flat earth believers, anti-vaxers, race realists and others are.

You meant this to be ironic didn’t you? Which group denies the proven science? And which group relies on hypothesis as a foundation?

You are protected in your belief in much the same way that flat earth believers, anti-vaxers, race realists and others are.

I don't think that's true at all. I'm not aware of any completely false belief which has been found to meet the standard.

Belief in God, Fairies or Tarot would be protected because they can't be disproved but the three examples you gave are all false and lack the internal logic to be protected beliefs.

I know if you live in Surrey or the Home Counties that there is a good chance you will support the likes of Truss and Boris et.al but, if not, ask yourself, what do their plans mean for you?

I think you will find many people around the UK are thinking about what their candidates offer. Maybe you have not noticed the swing away from labour lately though.

it isn't legal to blanket ban trans people from single sex services (the unreported AEA)

ROFL - poor attempt - no-one is trying to ban trans people from single sex services, just like everyone else, they are perfectly at liberty to use them, according to their sex (not gender)

Generally I welcome actual debate and input especially from ppl working in the relevant field eg the legal field.
But I remember clearly a particular post from RMW on a "sticker" thread, that I can't repeat as it was deleted, but was, er, less than "kind" about a particular group of people (not women, another protected characteristic). Disappointing. But yeah not somewhere I want to direct my money to.