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!

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

But TW (including Robin’s) outward expression of their sex category is clear regardless of clothes or hair style. So if this is the test then TW should always use men’s services.

It's also anti child safeguarding. Look at the dangerous influence of Gendered Intelligence & Mermaids on child health care at GIDS (see Hannah Barnes) & the deliberate undermining of the safeguarding DBS system. Schools have been an open door to Stonewall - despite their open campaigning to make the world a hostile place for girls and women & open defiance of safeguarding in offering a position to someone involved in a major safeguarding scandal (AC).

The social contract that determines that a society safeguards children as a priority has been undermined by these groups and individuals - pursuing their own wishes for validation at the expense of the youngest and most vulnerable in society with zero empathy, insight or concern.

Absolutely on the money there @MrsOvertonsWindow

It’s very convenient to say that the question “what is a woman” is a gotcha, because then TRAS can avoid the difficult task of actually answering to anyone’s satisfaction what a woman actually is in law and society. The real answer, they know, is pretty unpalatable. It’s biological women and any male who declares he wants to be/ feels like/ identifies as a woman.

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?

Robin isn’t saying here that physiology isn’t biology. Robin’s point is that if the law says physiology and other attributes of sex it must mean that the law accepts there are attributes of sex that are not physiology. Which is a sound, reading of that line.

But Robin then conflates physiology with biology and concludes that the law accepts there are attributes of sex that are not biological. This isn’t sound reasoning.

Physiology is biology, but it’s only one aspect of biology. Genetics, for instance, are biology but they aren’t physiology. So the other attributes of sex can refer to biological attributes. IIRC the courts used to refer to gonads, genes and something else biological when ruling on who could be considered female in DSD cases - so a mix of physiology and other biological attributes. It would be up to a court to interpret this law, but a good argument could be made that the intent of law makers was to refer to that type of consideration, since that is what had previously been accepted.

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.

If we ignore the fact that RMW still hasn't provided a definition of the word "woman" I can just about see the logic here. (I'm not saying I agree with it mind.) But if, for eg, a transwoman is attacked because someone thinks they are a woman, then the crime was committed against someone that the attacker thought was a woman, not against someone they thought was trans.

So by the same logic, when a transwoman commits a crime, but is not just perceived but recognised as male by the victim, then they should be treated as male by the law.
So a transwoman who rapes someone with their penis, should be referred to as "he" in court and the media, and, if given a custodial sentence, sent to a men's prison.
Surely?

Because if we are what others perceive us to be then a rapist can't be anything other than male.

The sex discrimination by ‘perception’ bit doesn’t require you to be trans, it could apply to any man. It is the same for any other protected characteristic; if someone mistakenly thought you were Muslim and discriminated against you on that basis it would be the same. The law knows full well you are not a Muslim and won’t treat you as one, it would treat you as being discriminated against because someone thought you were. But how often is a transwoman actually perceived to be a woman? In real life sex is easy to spot. I imagine more of a risk would be a man briefly being mistaken and then feeling ‘tricked’ when they realise.

@MillicentTrilbyHiggins "So by the same logic..."

I don't think they like it when you do that, down with you naughty woman.

My understanding is that Robin puts a lot of heavy lifting on ‘other attributes of sex’ and takes the view that that includes eg wearing a dress, wearing makeup and having long hair. All of which I would say are not remotely attributes of sex but expressions of societal norms of gender roles which change over time

TheBiologyStupid · 11/05/2022 00:54
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...!

Re what you said you may be interested in this House of Commons Discussion 23 January with legal expert Dr Michael Foran

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/12639/pdf/
Q26 Chair: Can I just finish with Lord Falconer? This could be a yes or no:
would it be helpful if there were a definition of sex in the Equality Act?

Dr Foran: There already is one.

Chair: There is an understanding of it. There is not a specific definition.

Dr Foran: Sex is if you are a man or a woman, and then the definition of man is a male of any age, and the definition of a woman is a female of any age. They have the definition. What they do not have is clarity.

Chair: The Haldane judgment interpreted that differently.

Dr Foran: Yes, it did. The Haldane—

Chair: Following the Haldane judgment, would it be helpful if that were
revisited?

Dr Foran: Absolutely.

(For anyone who missed this relevant petition there is still time)
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/12639/pdf/

Sorry this was the relevant petition.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

Love these articles - one factual, evidenced, dispassionate in stark contrast to the other emotive and guilt tripping. So revealing 😄

Michael Foran did a useful Twitter thread on the recent EHRC letter regarding clarification of sex in the EA.

https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1643277467409317892?s=46&t=fMjCB4vFfh_N6mYE72mhHw

As you can imagine, it’s resulted in the usual pile on and demands to his employer for him to be sacked.

Not just genetics! I studied anatomy as well as physiology at university. Physiology is about function, anatomy about structure.

“PriOn1 · Today 22:03”

NumberTheory · Today 02:16

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?

Robin isn’t saying here that physiology isn’t biology. Robin’s point is that if the law says physiology and other attributes of sex it must mean that the law accepts there are attributes of sex that are not physiology. Which is a sound, reading of that line

But Robin then conflates physiology with biology and concludes that the law accepts there are attributes of sex that are not biological. This isn’t sound reasoning.

Physiology is biology, but it’s only one aspect of biology. Genetics, for instance, are biology but they aren’t physiology. So the other attributes of sex can refer to biological attributes. IIRC the courts used to refer to gonads, genes and something else biological when ruling on who could be considered female in DSD cases - so a mix of physiology and other biological attributes. It would be up to a court to interpret this law, but a good argument could be made that the intent of law makers was to refer to that type of consideration, since that is what had previously been accepted.

Not just genetics! I studied anatomy as well as physiology at university. Physiology is about function, anatomy about structure.

NumberTheory and PriOn1
Thank you both for pointing the about nuances of meaning “physiological and other attributes of sex” showing that other attributes would be genetics and anatomy not simply ‘non-bioligical’ aspects as RMW ,and almost anyone, might have assumed.

How worrying the law is. A court case could easily end up with the wrong outcome for lack of someone bringing clarity to the meaning of the phrase in the Equality Act as you both have done.

Robin's 'answer' seems to be summarised as 'you're nasty for asking, you're not as clever as men for asking, anyone who looks like a woman is a woman (so erm, Robin isn't, India Willoughby isn't, Eddie Izzard isn't - though if Robin wants to offer a definition of 'looks like a woman' which does not include 'looks like they have a female body rather than a male one' then we can discuss further) and legal waft and smoke screen (with no attempt to show how it's actually relevant to the question). Robin has just made Robin look not very bright. Again.

We really need to be careful about thinking people whose arguments we don’t agree with just aren’t very bright.

Robin doesn’t strike me as unintelligent (and it would be hard to become a barrister without more than average intelligence). While the maxim never assume malevolence where ignorance is sufficient is a good one in day to day life, in a political fight it’s not going to do you any favours. Robin is likely a lot cleverer than most of the people who will read that article. Robin makes the case that the law supports TWAW because Robin wants others to accept it and, by doing so, is more likely to have people act as though it’s true. It isn’t because Robin isn’t very clever. If we actually think that we are liable to underestimate what we are up against.

Saying Robin is not very bright here does not mean Robin is not very bright per se. Robin is choosing (probably not consciously) not to use Robin's intelligence because of self interest.but it backfires because by saying that people are a woman if they look like a woman, Robin is effectively saying Robin themselves is not a woman - at least in the eyes of many. Robin looks to many like a man in a dress. Calling oneself and many other TW 'not women' clearly does not further the argument in the way Robin wants. Robin fails to account for the fact that secondary sexual characteristics are, for most people, what makes someone look like a woman. Not a frock and pearls.

Agreed @NumberTheory . We should never underestimate the intelligence of some of the people determined to transform society to meet their own interests. Just looking at the threads about the census demonstrates how easy it is for evidently intelligent statisticians to abandon their insight and integrity in the face of political demands.
How do we persuade these powerful individuals to appreciate the social contact and work to balance the needs of all groups in society, rather than desperately prioritising their personal demands over everyone?

A side point here: if Robin was physically assaulted by a man who thought Robin was a woman, that would be a crime, but not a hate crime. Because assault motivated by transphobia is a hate crime, but assault motivated by misogyny isn’t.

Also, thanks to NumberTheory for that very good explanation re physiology and biology.

Seconded. So many intelligent articulate posts on numerous threads - learnt a lot from the census embarrassment threads. Even those threads like the one where the OP wanted a new board where only the OP's narrow views would be allowed generated some inspirational writing.

I'm going to mention Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" here. I read the book when it first came out, nearly 50 years ago, and it has significantly affected the way I see the world.

Pirsig contrasts what he calls a "classical" way of viewing the world with a "Romantic" one. The classical way is concerned with the understanding of the underlying forms of things (the "motorcycle" part), looking at the categories and systems we use to describe the way the world works. The romantic way (the "Zen" part) is concerned with a more holistic way of looking at teh wrold, particularly with a focus on the observer's interpretation of what they observe. The classical mind looks on the romantic as superficial, non rigorous and obsessed with appearance. The romantic doesn't understnd how things actually work. The romantic looks on the classical mind as obsessed with forms of its own construction, denying direct experience of the world and feelings about it. The classicalist has no appreciation of what things actually mean. No soul. Totally square, with no understanding of groove.

Pirsig was concerned to understand and bridge the gap, which he did in a thought provoking way.

I think these two articles are superb examples of each mindset. The TRAs are romantic, which is why they have such difficulty in defending their views through argument and evidence. The classicists are impervious to the romantics' pleas just to experience, on the grounds that it's all irrational and doesn't make sense.

GC people tend, I think, to take a more classical view!

But we can either continuing blugeoning each other, or we can bridge the gap. How?

Interesting example!

But: The classicalist has no appreciation of what things actually mean.

The opposite! I want to understand what the romantics are saying by trying to ascertain what they mean. But the responses are, essentially, 'please don't ask'.

I think and feel and experience as much as anyone else. But because I want to explore this more deeply by trying to communicate this with others in a meaningful way, and think about how others in society might be affected, my "soul" is disregarded?

How about: we all have what might be called souls, we all have to live in a society where observable things happen. Is that a gap that needs to be bridged? Are we all essentially un-understandable? I hope not - but that is what genderists seem to be saying?

But we can either continuing blugeoning each other, or we can bridge the gap. How?

But this isn't a situation where a bridge style of compromise (meet in the middle) will work. Its a situation where that type of compromise will completely remove the rights of one group. A third space type of compromise would work for women, but TRA's have rejected it.

Look at Taoism; we are talking about competing opposites that cause destruction. Not balancing opposites.