Maya and Robin on "What is a woman?" - Personnel Today

[Justme56]

www.personneltoday.com/hr/what-is-a-woman-maya-forstater-transgender-rights/

www.personneltoday.com/hr/what-is-a-woman-robin-moira-white-transgender-rights/

An interesting read!

Such a stark contrast between the two pieces. I especially like the way that Maya has used plain English without any hyperbole.

No mention of very practical situations where sex needs to be clear (healthcare/prisons etc) in Robin's article.

Gosh I'm not sure about 'lunatic fringe' in an HR publication. It's obviously prejudiced/ablist but also very 'nobody sensible would agree' teaming type language.

The second one didn't actual answer the question though.

Plausibly to be expected if we recall some of the comments from Legal Feminist's review of RMW's book.

The book’s defects of structure, clarity of purpose and editing might have been forgiven if the authors had been able to offer helpful insights on some of the undoubtedly tricky problems in this area. But the book is equally disappointing in almost all matters of substance. The chapter on data protection and confidentiality (Chapter 7) provides a competent summary of the law, as (for the most part) does Chapter 3 on the GRA; but the rest of the book suffers from a pervasive tendentiousness, coupled with legal analysis that is either weak or simply absent.

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

I must be being really daft but surely "physiological and other aspects of sex" DOES mean/refer to biological sex? What is physiology if not biological?

Referring to the second article I should have said

The old enemies of liberal western democracy are again on the march, shrouded in the sheep’s clothing of ‘sex-based rights’. Be in no doubt that gay rights or women’s bodily autonomy would be next on the agenda.

Strrrreeeeeeeetccchhhhhh.

Predictably, Maya's answer is clear and accurate, while Robin's is full of straw men and absurdities, like this:

When, for example, citizens use changing or toilet facilities in a shop, we do not provide our birth certificate or take a chromosome test. Rather we are judged on the outward expression of our sex category, our gender. That is why the statutory guidance says that service providers should normally accommodate customers according to their gender

Robin has said before that Robin believes that access to such facilities should be based on things like clothing - see Robin's blog from 2010 when Robin decided whether to use the male or female toilets according to what clothing Robin was wearing at the time.

The rest of us just assume that most people will be decent enough to use the correct facilities for their sex. Similar to the way that we assume that most people don't go into a shop in order to steal. But this just shows Robin's low opinion of transgender people - that many or most of them would try to use the opposite sex facilities if they thought they could get away with it, with no consideration for other users, rather than the correct ones for their sex.

Robin says:

If you believe in a diverse, accepting society, or you are a forward-looking employer wanting your employees to bring their whole selves to work, this is your fight as much as any trans person’s.

I believe in a diverse, accepting society. I think men should accept gender non-conforming males into their spaces. I don't think anyone should be compelled to 'live as the opposite sex' if they are gender non-conforming. The concept of living as the opposite sex belongs in a bygone age when there were much stricter rules for how each of the sexes should dress and behave.

And as for employees 'bringing their whole selves to work'. No thank you.

Well my "whole self" includes believing that humans can not change sex. Or is it only certain people who are allowed to bring their whole self to work?

One uses plain English in a non political objective manner with good examples.
The other uses non plain English, is highly politicised and very subjective.

Dog whistles! What person outside of this debate knows the definition of that! Even uses the word shrill.

Well done Maya for providing s useful practical commentary for use in the workplace which was the intended audience.

The whole "this question gets trotted out as a 'gotcha' moment" thing really pisses me off. If TRAs are going to say TWAW, they have to be able to define their terms. And obviously none of them can in any sort of coherent manner because it's all bullshit.

'What is a woman?' is only a complex question for those reluctant to face facts. The complexity doesn't arise from the question itself.

I honestly have absolutely no interest in how a male person wishes to define the female sex class. It's about as appallingly offensive and insensitive as asking someone white to define what it means to be black. Or asking a female person to define what it means to be a TW.

Just fgs stop with the misogyny. Female people are not TW, TW are not female, these are two different groups. Male people need to figure out how to permit female people a little bit of oxygen and space on the planet because it's getting ridiculous now.

One uses plain English in a non political objective manner with good examples.
The other uses non plain English, is highly politicised and very subjective.

Dog whistles! What person outside of this debate knows the definition of that! Even uses the word shrill.

Well done Maya for providing s useful practical commentary for use in the workplace which was the intended audience.

This.

White talks about gender. But that wasn't the question. Sex and Gender are not the same thing.

IANAL, but what on Earth is RMW on about? Chapter One of the Eq Act defines the protected characteristic of sex:

11. Sex* In relation to the protected characteristic of sex— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.

Although admittedly, when drafting the Act it never occurred to anyone that basic definitions such as "man" or "woman" would be wilfully misconstrued...!

Oops, not sure what happened to my formatting there!

Although admittedly, when drafting the Act it never occurred to anyone that basic definitions such as "man" or "woman" would be wilfully misconstrued...!

Which is why the Equality Act helpfully defines the terms “man” and “woman”:

Part 16, Section 212(1)
“man” means a male of any age;
“woman” means a female of any age.

Of course, now we’re not allowed to use the terms “male” and “female” because … reasons.

god Robin uses a lot of words (like 'shrill') to say 'I'm sexist and be nice to me' doesn't Robin?

Robin also doesn't address the question of whether my vulnerable 78 year old mother is entitled to expect intimate care to be provided by a woman. Or whether women prisoners should be locked up with rapists. Or whether sportswomen should give up their medals and sponsorship to men who fancy having a go. Or whether women politicians should give up spaces on all women shortlists to men who are damn sure they're very vulnerable and discriminated against.

In fact, in Robin's world, even asking the question 'what is a woman?' 'outs' you as "as adopting a reactionary position to the rich tapestry of human existence".

what a doofus Robin is

Nice clear article by Maya. Hopefully people are well able to assess the relative merits of the arguments

Biological female is a dog whistle?

riiiiiight.

Women even stating they are a biological reality is transphobic.

Yeah, done now. Colour me transphobic, if that's what you kids are calling not stamping all over women these days.

"Shrill"? Oopsie Robin!

"Shrill" has a long history of use by misogynists and sexists (of both sexes and all genders) to put down women who are arguing for their rights. Oh those shrill high-pitched women's voices, how annoying they are!

So if I wanted to convince people that I had spent more than five minutes thinking about who is a woman, and that I was not just taking an instinctive sexist position against women who disagree with me, "shrill" is not a word I would choose.

I feel that word was chosen deliberately.

Yeah

Robin is a crass, boorish chauvinist

Robin actually enjoys baiting women by showing that