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

Mulling it over, I wonder it's what happens when one spends time policing women's speech on Mumsnet, that one should really spend studying the law. We all procrastinate though, to be fair.

This is interesting, given that White's stated position on another MN thread was that the single sex exclusion for rape counselling "even if she has a gender recognition certificate" isn't actually intended to apply to MTF males with a GRC, only FTM females. Wonder if their position change to whether "she" passes changed before or after this?:

I, for one, am astonished that our occasional visitor has written a book with the same incoherence and misplaced over-confidence as their posting style in FWR. Remarkable consistency in mediocrity.

I half expected each chapter to begin 'Dear Diary...'

Yet again, deeply reassured that White is representing Stonewall against Allison Bailey.

There’s a sleight of hand here – whether conscious or not

I’d say definitely conscious - after all, if you can muddle the definitions of man / woman / male / female enough then we enter Humpty Dumpty’s world where When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.

“The EqA 2010 definition of ‘man’ is a male of any age and ‘woman’ is a female of any age’ (EqA s212). But without a definition of ‘male’ and ‘female’ this does not help. Is a trans male a male or a trans woman female? 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?”

I am so glad that this gets printed more and more. Because it must surely show to those who have derided women who refuse to accept this mantra of TW AW that the end game is the mantra that TW are female. And it will be spun that it is only a ‘social’ and ‘legal’ acceptance and not at all medical but… still… be kind and let males be what they want. And all of you are just ‘not up to date’ or ‘an extreme minority’ for saying you want a word for yourselves.

Thanks for making this clear Robin.

I don't understand why, other than for deplorable reasons of racism, anybody ever needs to specify that black women are women.

”[C]are should be taken to note the word “might”. For example, the situation may well depend on how well the trans person “passes”: if it is not possible to tell by looking at / listening to a trans woman that she is transgender then it is far less likely that the genuine occupational requirement would apply as compared with, say, a trans woman who does not pass as well and in a number of respects still looks male.”

This is chilling. Thanks again Robin for making it so very clear that the end goal is that as long as no one catches on that they are being lied to, it is ok to lie to even the most traumatised person.

Chilling indeed that honesty is no longer to be expected by anyone. Hence why the very notion of allowing language to be changed to allow males to be considered women and then female should be rejected. Because when you have males stating that it is perfectly ok in ANY circumstance to not be honest about immutable facts such as that they are male, how far will this go.

It is very obvious that those who seek to allow this lie have no concern for others. No concern for a traumatised female when she discovers that even at her very lowest she was not worth honesty. And for her to discover the deception at a later date doesn’t mean she will not be retraumatised by the discovery. How cruel.

But thanks for making it so clear.

From Sarah Phillimore:

Robin White announced to a Zoom full of students (and me!) that those who argued there was tension between ‘trans’ rights and women’s rights were ‘completely mad’. I still hope Robin may retract and apologise but possibly I hope in vain.

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1433707045652418562

@TinselAngel

I don't understand why, other than for deplorable reasons of racism, anybody ever needs to specify that black women are women.

This times x 1000. Racist and homophobic.

[quote Leafstamp]From Sarah Phillimore:

Robin White announced to a Zoom full of students (and me!) that those who argued there was tension between ‘trans’ rights and women’s rights were ‘completely mad’. I still hope Robin may retract and apologise but possibly I hope in vain.

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1433707045652418562[/quote]
Yes… incidences like the WiSpa event obviously is acceptable collateral for someone who tells people they are ‘mad’ for thinking there is tension and outright conflicts between the rights for two groups.

@FloralBunting

I, for one, am astonished that our occasional visitor has written a book with the same incoherence and misplaced over-confidence as their posting style in FWR. Remarkable consistency in mediocrity.

I half expected each chapter to begin 'Dear Diary...'

Yet again, deeply reassured that White is representing Stonewall against Allison Bailey.

Yes, this.

I don't understand why, other than for deplorable reasons of racism, anybody ever needs to specify that black women are women.

Quite. I think it's something white woke people do, in an attempt to paint GC views as immoral and backwards, but it just makes them sound like they personally think black women in particular only have as much right to the word "woman" as some men do. Not a good look.

I've never once heard a genderist of colour use that specific analogy. It's always white people, in my experience.

if it is not possible to tell by looking at / listening to a trans woman that she is transgender

That's the thing about this that TW just don't comprehend. Female people can tell sex. We can tell the sex of a person who is walking behind us in the dark from their footsteps.

Very few trans people pass. Fair enough in photos, but in real life, with movement - women spot there is something incongruent.

Male people just see tits, toosh and teeth. That is why so many TW believe they pass because they see themselves through male eyes.

RMW is quite wrong in the point above. Utterly wrong. Traumatised women are hyper vigilant to male signs.

“The EqA 2010 definition of ‘man’ is a male of any age and ‘woman’ is a female of any age’ (EqA s212). But without a definition of ‘male’ and ‘female’ this does not help. Is a trans male a male or a trans woman female? 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?”

I'm at a loss as to how a supposedly intelligent person could write something that's both homophobic and racist and not realise it...but then I remember that phrase about the misplaced confidence of mediocre white males...

RMW is quite wrong in the point above. Utterly wrong. Traumatised women are hyper vigilant to male signs.

I think I can gather from posting history that there is a care factor lacking there. Lip service is paid but this book blows that lip service to shreds.

The idea that Robin, as a barrister, doesn’t understand the principles of statutory interpretation, is ludicrous.

The Equality Act 2010 doesn’t need to include a definition of “female” any more than it needs a definition of “pregnancy” or “age”. These words have ordinary English meanings which the Courts will apply if anyone is foolish enough to waste money asking them to confirm that “female” is a word that does not include any males, no matter how they identify.

I can only assume, Terry that RMW must believe there is a definition of "female" other than the one in the dictionary.

I certainly prefer that to the other possibility, that a member of the bar holds views which are racist and homophobic.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

I can only assume, Terry that RMW must believe there is a definition of "female" other than the one in the dictionary.

I certainly prefer that to the other possibility, that a member of the bar holds views which are racist and homophobic.

Indeed vivarium

Well obviously we can all start lying about our age (also immutable) and insisting that because we have convinced some people to accept our age that we are actually that age.

Strange that this is not acceptable. Maybe the authors can explain the difference.

[quote Leafstamp]From Sarah Phillimore:

Robin White announced to a Zoom full of students (and me!) that those who argued there was tension between ‘trans’ rights and women’s rights were ‘completely mad’. I still hope Robin may retract and apologise but possibly I hope in vain.

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1433707045652418562[/quote]
But Robin has come on here countless times to argue for 'trans rights'. Robin has had the clash with women's rights explained at length and has argued with us.

So one of these must apply:

1. Robin didn't understand our arguments and how they relate to women's rights.

1. Robin has forgotten these discussions.

1. Robin self identifies as 'completely mad' since Robin has taken part in discussions about the clash of 'trans rights' and women's rights.

1. Robin thinks that women who disagree with Robin must be "completely mad".

That'll be from what Hippocrates said - our uteruses get into our pretty little heads and make us silly, won't it?

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

I can only assume, Terry that RMW must believe there is a definition of "female" other than the one in the dictionary.

I certainly prefer that to the other possibility, that a member of the bar holds views which are racist and homophobic.

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 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?

[quote Leafstamp]From Sarah Phillimore:

Robin White announced to a Zoom full of students (and me!) that those who argued there was tension between ‘trans’ rights and women’s rights were ‘completely mad’. I still hope Robin may retract and apologise but possibly I hope in vain.

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1433707045652418562[/quote]
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.

It's gobsmacking.