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!

Whilst ‘shrill’ is horrible terminology, according to what I read, it is linked to the fact that women have longer vocal chords than men so can produce a more high pitched sound. Biology is a fascinating topic.

Robin is a crass, boorish chauvinist

Which would mean that Robin is deliberately operating from a position of sexism, rather than accidentally, but I'm not fussed about Robin's motives, whether they're pure ignorance, unconsious sexism, or conscious and deliberate sexism.

My point was only that Robin's choice of language undermines Robin's own argument.

“What is a woman?” is the political “gotcha” question of the moment
I hate that she's framed it as this.
The numerous times I've asked it over the years, I've been totally genuine. You're telling us 'woman' no long means female. Ok. What does it mean then? "We can't say".
In what other aspect of law would that be acceptable?

"So a trans woman perceived as a woman and discriminated against because she is a woman, will be a woman in the sight of the law."

But she hasn't said what a woman IS!?
It's just 'the answer is complex' 'the answer is not simple' but doesn't attempt to answer it at all.

All of those words and completely unable to say what a woman is?
When she uses the word "woman", what defining factors is she referring to?
What single thing do 'women' have in common that non-women do not share?

Does she not know, or does she not want to say?

The closest I can see is "Rather we are judged on the outward expression of our sex category, our gender."
So does she actually think that gender expression is what makes someone a woman? Which is awful.

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 and why the non-statutory guidance, referring to biological sex, put out for apparently political purposes by the Equality and Human Rights Commission last month is both wrong in law and unworkable in practical application.

Really?
The reason that the EHRC guidance is wrong is BECAUSE people (who? this wouldn't stand in a Wikipedia article, let along legal text) judge citizens on their gender expression? How does the latter cause the former?

I can't help thinking that it doesn't and that saying it does is incorrect.

What RMW doesn't answer is what do we do when someone is not perceived as a woman and in fact is not a woman? Is the perceiver doing anything wrong in itself if they act accordingly (deny the person entry to a woman's sporting event, for example)?

Because that's a far more common scenario (not universal, I completely acknowledge).

Acts of harassment or violence are obviously wrong. And I certainly believe can be made worse by transphobia, just as they can be made worse by misogyny (of course, no police force recognises misogyny as a hate factor).

But someone perceiving sex correctly and acting on that in circumstances where sex is legally or practically relevant. What is the HR and legal role there?

So does she actually think that gender expression is what makes someone a woman?

I recommend a look at Robin's blog to answer this question (the answer from there would appear to be 'yes').

Robin has written a book about transgender law. It is reviewed here by Naomi Cunningham, who is not impressed.

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

So the sensible answer is to recognise that “What is a woman?” is a complex question for a small proportion of society. That is the real answer as veteran campaigner, Labour’s Emily Thornberry, demonstrated so well when faced with ‘the question’. To deny the complexity is to deny trans people’s legitimacy, even very existence. And that denial is often the point of asking the rhetorical question.

It’s very easy to recognise that a small proportion of society think it is a complex question. But it doesn’t mean it IS a complex question. And to deny this complexity in no way denies trans people’s legitimacy. Not as trans people. What Robin means is that if you don’t accept the oh so complex answer that some people give in response to the question you are denying their legitimacy as women. Robin is saying that if you don’t bend your truth to accept that the answer can include males, you’re denying the legitimacy of the statement TWAW. Robin is being disingenuous, as usual.

Finding this question complex is the entire raison d’être of being trans. I accept that is what legitimises person as being trans. But if you’re reliant on the answer being given fitting what you want it to be, rather than what it actually is, to legitimise you then you’re always doomed to struggle.

It’s society’s job to accept that some people struggle with this question, but it not society’s job to lie. Not when it comes to law and science.

I'm always surprised when I remember Robin is supposed to be a barrister.

What Robin means is that if you don’t accept the oh so complex answer that some people give in response to the question you are denying their legitimacy as women.

I don't think Robin did give an answer in that piece, even a complex answer? Did she say what a woman is?

So she thinks it's someone's appearance, but couldn't say that in the article she was given to write?

I'll hold judgement till I've read that myself. I'm just still none the wiser from that piece as to what common characteristics a woman has, according to RMW.

Yes, this. Mic drop.

I think you'll find it's the males who are allowed / encouraged to bring their whole self to work (like rubber fetish NSPCC guy). Women aren't whole people according to TRAs, they're just support humans.

My whole self believes that it's evolutionarily hardwired into mammals to be able to tell which sex (of the binary) other members of that species are. Dogs can tell adult human men from women even if the former are wearing a dress and 1 inch thick makeup.

I think women can accurately sex adults 99%+ of the time. In history, even now, our survival depends on it. Sometimes we pretend not to have this ability to 'be kind', sometimes we pretend not to have this ability out of fear. Doesn't mean we don't know.

This is my professional publication. I have complained many times about their gender agenda and using incorrect terms etc. So it’s HUGE for me that they have published Maya at all!

One of these articles reads as written by a professional adult

The other reads as written by someone using a lot of word salad to try and get their own way and trample over everyone else.

@OnceAgainWithFeeling agree, it’s a step forward, but a disgrace that professional publications (I’m looking at you People Mangement) aren’t telling people what the law actually says! They are leaving their members/subscribers open to litigation because they’ve got the single sex exemptions wrong because very bloody magazine has represented stonewall law.

Absolutely. I’m absolutely sick of pointing it out (gently) to my EDI colleagues.

Of course Robin doesn’t answer the actual question. Robin just insinuates that if you don’t accept people’s answers you’re a delegitimising bigot. Robin knows if an answer was attempted and included males, Robin would get bogged down in the circular logic of that, so Robin avoids that and distracts instead.

Robin just insinuates that if you don’t accept people’s answers you’re a delegitimising bigot.

But in order to know whether I accept her answer or not, she needs to provide one.

So I'm a sort of Schroedinger's bigot, waiting for the definition of woman to replace "adult female" that seems to be in a permanent quantum state because Robin either can't or won't provide it.

if you don’t accept the oh so complex answer that some people give in response to the question you are denying their legitimacy as women.

Yeah.... there's a quote for this, isn't there? I've seen it very recently. To do with:

if a male person says they are a woman they must be believed implicitly, their legitimacy and lived experience must not be denied and it is wrong not to listen to them.

However if a female person says they know what a woman is they are stupid, wrong and are shouted down and ignored. Their legitimacy and lived experience is irrelevant.

And hence it is made perfectly clear that waving the words around is pointless. Everyone involved is demonstrating that they know exactly who the women are.

I think part of the confusion over this issue (and why guidance from the Equalities Commission is so sorely needed) is because, as other people have rightfully pointed out, I don't think it was ever anticipated that we would need to agonise over the definition of the word 'female' or 'woman' when the legislation was made.

This part in Robin's piece made me raise an eyebrow:" in discrimination law a time will come when an individual is to be accepted in their affirmed gender for discrimination purposes. Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 refers to ‘physiological and other attributes of sex’ so Equality Act ‘sex’ is not biological, as the EHRC erroneously are now saying. Baroness Falkner, the EHRC’s chair, should read the Act."

Oof, the implication that Falkner hasn't read the Act. That's uncharitable. But what I would like to know from Robin is HOW this change in discrimination law is going to happen. Apparently it is a bigoted dog whistle to ask 'what is a woman', but Robin proposes to change the definition of woman in law so...what is it? A person is to be accepted in their affirmed gender for discrimination purposes (not even sure what that means, but let's take it to mean a man who says he is a woman will be accepted as a woman in discrimination law.) So what does 'woman' now mean, in the law? Is it any person who attests and affirms they are a woman, with no content as to what 'woman' actually is? What is an 'affirmed' gender? What is gender? What distinguishes a man from a man who declares he is a woman, and why does this matter legally? Do females, an oppressed group, have no rights to be protected on the basis of their biological sex whatsoever, and if not why not? Why is gender now king? These aren't 'dog whistles'. Supporters of gay marriage managed to beautifully explain their proposed legal changes and why they wanted them. I have not yet heard an answer as to why gender should supersede biological sex, and how this would actually work.

And for a barrister this is just extraordinary...s. 7 of the Equality act refers to 'physiological and other attributes of sex' so sex is not biological. What is 'physiological' if not biological? Physiology is a branch of biology, for goodness sake! Unless Robin is putting a lot of weight on 'other attributes of sex', which aren't biological. But what on earth could these attributes possibly be? Wearing a dress? Having a lady mind?

It's so frustrating to see trans rights activists bicker and criticise the gender critical position without actually telling us what it is they want and why. I will be far more willing to support Robin's plan if I'm actually told what is 'sex' if it's not a biological concept? What is gender? How do we protect the humans formerly known as biological women? And what's in it for me?

a word that has no meaning is meaningless. If the words are meaningless our rights are meaningless. If laws use words which are meaningless then they are unenforceable and become meaningless laws. If the laws which secure and defend sex based rights are meaningless then those rights no longer exist.

I would definitely support parliamentary debate and a clarification of exactly what the laws actually mean and how they interact even if the answers are not what I think they should be as I do believe laws should be clear.

‘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.’

This is such a LIE. The truth is trans activists are trying to silence women into giving up our rights and safety.

TRA ideology = age-old patriarchal oppression of women.

Not just a lie Slide, there is a group which wants to remove women’s bodily autonomy and gay rights, it’s just not the group fighting for sex-based rights.

Worth a read just to see how comprehensively RMW avoids the question

Oh I’m aware such groups exist. But those of us fighting against the erosion of women’s rights are not in alignment with them.

Which was my point - it is a total lie to try to tie gender critical women in with homophobia/anti abortion crap.

In fact trans activism is homophobic as well as anti women’s rights.

Rather we are judged on the outward expression of our sex category, our gender.

Surely nobody genuinely judges RMW to be female.

Absolutely, and RMW clings to and utilises his male privelege when it suits him.