Robin Moira White on Woman's Hour Now (Tuesday 28/9)

[WinterTrees]

Just turned on and heard this. It seems WH is really going for it this week with this issue. Making up for lost time.

Seems to be about RMW's work as a lawyer.

I don't think I've ever seen a thread about RMW without Robin themselves coming on to make a carefully couched, ever so slightly threatening comment about other posters needing to be careful about what they say.

It's as predictable as night following day (and there's normally a plug for the book too).

It seems to be the latest talking point that not being able to take your penis into the female changing room is just like South African apartheid.

Not only is it a crass argument it's a completely back to front one because if any group in this weak analogy is the equivalent to white SA power it's male people.

Gay men were never excluded from men's toilets. They were followed into them and arrested when they smiled at a police officer. So is that the parallel?

Clarity yet again that female humans can explain their needs and problems carefully, over and over andfuckingover again, as patiently and thoroughly as they like on a 1:1 basis..

and the male person involved still sees and hears nothing except what they personally want and need. And will use their more powerful voice to get it. Without giving a toss for the voices, needs and feelings of mere females.

Hence: absolute no to ending female only spaces for females who want and need them that exclude all males. Any good will is long, long gone.

I was listening to this, too. I just couldn't understand why homosexuality was brought into the discussion on surgery for children. And I'd also disagree that the doctor dealing with the child was one of those who knew him/her best.

Near the end of the interview Robin acknowledges the difficulties about conflicting beliefs:

"People can hold a belief, but do they then improperly impose it on other people? Do they make other people uncomfortable in the workplace?"

This is exactly the problem we have with people who believe that they are a different 'gender' and they believe that this means they should be treated as the opposite sex. This conflicts with the rights of those people who don't believe in gender identity or who don't believe that a self-declared gender identity changes anyone's sex.

If a man goes into work one day and declares that he has a womanly gender identity, he is imposing his belief on other people and may make women uncomfortable, especially if he believes that his newly declared womanly identity means that he should be able to use the women's toilets. If he declares that everyone should now use the pronoun 'she' when referring to him, he is imposing his beliefs on others which might make them uncomfortable, when they can see he is the same man he has always been.

Thank you Robin for stating so clearly what the problem is with people imposing their beliefs about gender identity on others who don't share that belief.

Please note too;

• Hate speech: can we please have additional solutions that work for you and females so we don't exclude and harm females while meeting your obviously incredibly important and prioritised special needs in taking away our spaces, resources and language?

• Righteousness: females may have nothing else and no remaining thing of their own, they either submit to mixed sex or lose access, and any female objecting may face Consequences.

I mean WTAF.

@BoreOfWhabylon

Just listening now. Emma said that RMW had written into the programme touting their book, hence the invitation to the programme.

I have seen the book criticised as not being accurate though. Perhaps someone with knowledge of this could write into WH to let them know.

Strangely enough, I didnt do that and she didnt say that. But dont let the facts stand in the way of a good 'argumentum ad homina' slur...

"People can hold a belief, but do they then improperly impose it on other people? Do they make other people uncomfortable in the workplace?"

Let's face it, the speaker is envisioning people as two entirely different groups. One is the served and one is the service provider. The speaker does not see these two groups as equal in any way, including equally human, and does not at any time apply equal standards, expectations and entitlements to both groups.

Yes, it was all very, very confused with obscure back-to-front reasoning.

At one point Robin used the analogy of a nurse with Christian beliefs wanting to pray over people in end of life care, and that potentially being uncomfortable as those people might not share her religious beliefs. Which seemed to me to back up the argument that a woman in end of life care might not want to be looked after by someone who believes in gender ideology and thinks their 'womanly' gender presentation trumps their male sex. But I'm assuming that isn't what Robin was arguing at all?

Single female sex spaces are designed to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of a disadvantaged group and in so doing include them in society. Race segregated spaces are designed to exclude a disadvantaged group
When people who are male but have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment enter a female only space that space becomes mixed sex, therefore denying a disadvantaged group safety ,dignity and privacy. This is akin to white people denying people of colour any facilities, thereby excluding them from public life. In a similar way making all female provision mixed sex, excludes many women from public life.

@SpindleWorld

Is RMW misrepresenting the content of the Equality Act 2010, perchance?

Probably, as it seems to be a recurring issue.

As you are here, Robin, maybe you could assure us that you are going to correct that error henceforth. It's not like you haven't been challenged in it countless times, here and elsewhere.

argumentum ad homina

Time to brush up on that Latin.

We know that there is no justifiable, or even rational reason for women to give up their sex segregated spaces and even their name.

We also know that arguments like race, homosexuality, marginalisation, and debunked suicide statistics are the only ammo.

Many people are hearing this absolute nonsense for the first time. So the arguments need to be aired. No debate is long gone.

We know that airing the arguments sets listeners on one-way path.

So bring it on.

Single female sex spaces are designed to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of a disadvantaged group and in so doing include them in society.

According to what Robin wrote on Robin's blog, Robin seems to think that the women's toilets are for people wearing 'skirts and heels' (perhaps taking the sign on the door a little too literally).

I rushed down to our local supermarket. While I was there I decided that I needed to use 'the facilities'. I was off down the corridor behind the cigarette kiosk and then I had to comee to a shuddering STOP to remember whether I should be using the ladies or the gents. Check: skirt and heels - ladies!

'argumentum ad homina'

Are we doing bad Latin now?

Sorry, I know it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I just couldn't ignore it.

It's on the BBC site now for anyone who missed it.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0010086

Starts about 38 mins in.

@OldCrone

Single female sex spaces are designed to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of a disadvantaged group and in so doing include them in society.

According to what Robin wrote on Robin's blog, Robin seems to think that the women's toilets are for people wearing 'skirts and heels' (perhaps taking the sign on the door a little too literally).

I rushed down to our local supermarket. While I was there I decided that I needed to use 'the facilities'. I was off down the corridor behind the cigarette kiosk and then I had to comee to a shuddering STOP to remember whether I should be using the ladies or the gents. Check: skirt and heels - ladies!

I never wear skirts or heels, does this mean I should be using the gents toilets?

As Robin feels that people who are biologically male but have the protected characteristic of gender assignment , are entitled to use female only spaces, why do they not just come out and say that all public spaces should be mixed sex; all hospital wards,prison cells refuges,hostel dormitories, communal changing and showering facilities etc.

@CharlieParley

'argumentum ad homina'

Are we doing bad Latin now?

It's given me an earworm... Muppets Mna Mna do do de doo doo

gender reassignment. My apologies

@OldCrone

Single female sex spaces are designed to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of a disadvantaged group and in so doing include them in society.

According to what Robin wrote on Robin's blog, Robin seems to think that the women's toilets are for people wearing 'skirts and heels' (perhaps taking the sign on the door a little too literally).

I rushed down to our local supermarket. While I was there I decided that I needed to use 'the facilities'. I was off down the corridor behind the cigarette kiosk and then I had to comee to a shuddering STOP to remember whether I should be using the ladies or the gents. Check: skirt and heels - ladies!

Then less than an hour ago I used the wrong facilities in a local supermarket. Could I have been arrested?

Haha first ever deletion

I may have repeated a deleted post (obviously it wasn't deleted when I posted) but I am sure there is nothing wrong with the content of my own post:

Bodies with penises wishing to enter women's single-sex spaces is nothing like Rosa Parks' civil disobedience in refusing to give up her seat for a white person. Trying to co-opt race-discrimination into the gender woo-woo is pretty offensive. I make no reference to any specific person who might or might not have made that sort of comparison. It's just a general point that we can all agree on.

Helen Joyce has yet to be interviewed about her book but RMW gets this invitation!?!