Anti-trans spin from RMW

[Crazylazydayz]

There is a difference between being supporting women’s rights and anti-trans.

In this article RMW is misrepresenting a whole raft of women who are fighting for women’s rights as being anti trans.

novaramedia.com/2022/05/31/a-barrister-explains-why-employment-tribunals-are-a-new-trans-rights-battlefield/

Harrop did indeed give an interview to a 'newspaper' during his hearing, but let's not forget Harrop is a GP and not a barrister. In this case, barrister who is actually acting for one of the respondents in the case the interview hinges on gave the interview.

I cannot see how this was a smart move on RMW"s part.

Exactly this, plus possibly defaming Forstater and Bailey, be interested to see if the judge in Bailey picks this up.

On one of the threads about AB's tribunal, posters speculated how long it would take RMW to comment online on the case. Did anyone think it would be 5 days after the last day of the tribunal.
This will be brought to EJ's attention and the Bar Council's. I won't speculate whether any rules have been broken because I don't know enough about how the rules are applied.
All I will say is RMW displays a boldness and sense of entitlement that the vast majority of us on this board do not. One that RMW cannot- and does not want to- identify out of.

I am SO angry at this. So so so angry. It is utterly wrong.

Well, that was certainly an astounding read. Not, perhaps, in the way RMW intended though.

@SerotinaPickeler I'm with you 100%. You make excellent points. The argument is constantly framed as being 'anti-trans'. I am most certainly not that, however I feel strongly that the rights of women and girls are being eroded to keep a small minority happy. In doing so, the people readily dismantling those rights have made enemies of people who could be allies, but just not in the way they wanted.

Grace Lavery said in the Nolan podcast that GL passed "until I open my mouth". Never having seen GL, I googled. Well. No. Even with allllllll the filters.

"Think of the things you could do with that money, choose any charity, give to the poor..."
RMW, you're disgraceful.

She lost me when she said' it is truly possible to change sex.' That is a direct quote from her webpage.

Or should I say they/them , not sure.

Would they refer it to the 'Ethics committee'...I wonder...which of course includes someone on the same tribunal.

Robin shares your fear- hence her statement that the goal of these so called anti trans (cough pro women cough) positions was to spread awareness which would grow the movement. It wouldn’t grow the movement if telling people what’s going on didn’t make them go wtf. Odd Robin admitted that really when she has obviously realised it’s poor optics to continue admitting that her male voice was useful in a courtroom and yes you can have your cake and eat it too as long as you are born the right sex. These concerns about surgery and time off didn’t come up in earlier interviews, in those she said that the low voice was very effective. Women barristers would know this very well.

Binding them is an inexplicable opposition – in many cases, what feels closer to virulent hatred – to the existence of trans people.

That kind of misrepresentation is itself hate speech.

Do they just not get it? It's not hatred of trans people, it is the ability to risk assess men on the basis of them being men, and make decisions accordingly?

They know they are men, we know they are men, they know we know they are men and we know they know that we know they are men. All this flouncing around shouting 'they hate trans people' doesn't actually help anyone.

RMW or GL? I googled and found this about GL:
news.berkeley.edu/2021/06/14/qa-with-grace-lavery/

well as someone who has no issue with how someone feels, or what they want to wear, or what they call themselves, etc BUT who also happens to believe that you cannot change sex and that single sex spaces should be just that, you know as allowed in law! I take offence at being misrepresented as someone they believe to be so bloody horrible.

Sometimes I don't like or get on with certain people, for a variety of reasons. But I don't hate or wish out of existence entire groups of people because of it.

I am and have always been a live and let live sort of person. As long as you don't bother me, I won't bother you.

So yeah, what is being said about people with the same views as me, by this individual, is sounding like hate speech to me.

Sorry @OldCrone it was GL.

These concerns about surgery and time off didn’t come up in earlier interviews, in those she said that the low voice was very effective. Women barristers would know this very well.

I'm reminded of the moment when during Allison Bailey's tribunal Jane Russell cross-examined Kirrin Medcalf and sounded to my ears like a bossy but kind nanny leading a child through a minefield. I heard another commentator refer to her voice as being like that of a CBeebies presenter. Very difficult to be taken seriously as a female barrister, even more if you have a classically feminine voice.

RMW is the Rita Skeeter of the legal world isn't she?

Don't barristers have any standards they have to follow like "don't completely misrepresent your opponent's viewpoint"?

"If you see me [in person], you’re in no doubt about my gender...."

There was NO doubt, whatsoever, in my mind what biological sex this person was when I viewed the recent ET. The camera placement made it tricky to see this person's attired, especially as all were seated. But once the 'dress' was visible I then understood that they wanted to be seen as a woman. But nope, not easy to spot.

The clothes thing makes no sense. I’m sat in jeans and an ancient fleece (because although the calendar says it’s summer the weather is identifying as trans-winter); I pay my own mortgage and earn my own money.

If a blush pink coat makes someone female, why doesn’t a blue fleece and financial independence make me male?

I won't speculate whether any rules have been broken because I don't know enough about how the rules are applied.
All I will say is RMW displays a boldness and sense of entitlement that the vast majority of us on this board do not.

I agree. Regardless of what the rules say, the fascinating thing for me is the level of confidence displayed by RMW. I find it highly unusual.

@Motorina I'm sat here in clothes, socks and slippers all bought from a "menswear" department , and am also financially independent.

And yet here I still as female as the day I was born and the doctor pronounced me so.

I'm as stumped as you are to be honest!

I think it is ethically dodgy but RMW is trying to speak about these cases in general rather than AB's case. Their comments on that seemed to be about these evil terfy types zooming in in their coordinated master plan. Personally I wouldn't have given that interview and I hope EJG reprimands them but I can see the defence they are trying to set up.

Apart from that it is bloody annoying very revealing that arguments against GC always say they don't want trans people to exist/wish them dead. I've never seen anyone make that argument, ever. Seems the only way that TRAs can argue is to misrepresent others' views to a point beyond spectacular distortion.

And yes, this obsession with believing they pass!?!