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/

@Floisme 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.

Now you see I don't, I've seen many people in my working life who behave like this. The belief that only their opinion is the correct one. The belief that they will get everything they want. The indignation if someone had something they didn't. The causal disregard for entire groups of people who didn't agree with them due to the opinions of one person from that group.

I used to work predominately with men.

Make of that what you will.

RMW "These are professions in which public speech and opinion is important, the ‘talking’ professions. If you work for Amazon and your job is packing things into boxes, there are fewer opportunities to air your views on trans people. Traditionally barristers were a pool that generated quite a lot of politicians in the country."

So how does RMW know it's a minority view when they acknowledge that people in most professions don't get to air their views?

This fingers in its ears, hyperbole based on nothing more than misogyny is getting beyond old now.

To quote the vid on the other thread, that deflector shield ran out of battery years ago. This is just more complaints that the service humans are revolting.

Some interesting discussion on Twitter between Barbara rich, Ed levey and others about whether publishing this article at this time is against professional rules and guidance. Consensus seems to be it doesn’t, but doesn’t do much for the image of the profession or the publishing barrister. Most barristers wish to appear impartial for all the obvious reasons.

Although it's worth noting that RMW is being somewhat naive (or possibly disingenuous) in not recognising that it is entirely possible for someone to choose a username for the tribunal that doesn't match their true identity.

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.

It reminds me very much of the poster who, in the early days of the AB tribunal, posted a lecture about how we all needed to show respect for junior counsel and told us to give them all their full titles etc. There was a distinct boldness and entitlement on display there. They'd spelled Allison's name wrong, of course, but little things like that don't count, do they?

All very 'you are here to do as I say and as I tell you. I am not here to listen to you'.

Followed by bafflement that the response is not enthusiastic or compliant.

No thank you.

Oh yes, I've named changed since then but I remember it well.
There had been lots of comments that day speculating about who might have been responsible for the shambolic bundle. Thank goodness someone was here to remind us barristers are very important people! Even ones who can't work paper.

Well, it certainly answers the question 'what rights do trans people not have?'.
If I saw just the title and knew nothing about this issue, I'd assume it's the right of trans people not to lose their jobs or be discriminated against in the workplace for being trans.
That I'd stand beside them wholeheartedly.
But it turns out that the 'new trans rights battlefield' is actually the 'right 'of trans people to get a woman fired if they don't like her views. That one is a hell no.

But what I saw seemed to ignore the slanderous nature of what was written. I can't believe professional ethics permit slander.

I was recently chatting with a transwoman in a local pub. She started a discussion about JKR and I said I agree with her. She started crying and insisted that JKR and I don't want her to exist.

We ended the chat with a hug but I was surprised at her fear.

The thing is, other people's fragile feelings cannot be a reason to hand over female humans' words, rights, equality, access, safeguarding, or to go around pretending that things are other than they are. This distorted thinking cannot and should not be enabled. I am deeply compassionate towards someone who struggles with this, but the answer has to be that they cannot expect and depend on the rest of the world enabling them at all times regardless of the detriment. The world cannot be all about them. They must find ways to manage those feelings and cope with the idea that other people have needs and rights and beliefs that must be accommodated too.

Nicely said, Artichoke!

Absolutely

But that conversation was important. No one died. No-one was harmed. It is the lack of conversation and sheer quantity of finger pointing and threats that has made this so awful.

Just so rmw knows if rmw comes to see this thread.
I and many many others will put our hands in our pockets again for allison if it comes to needing an appeal and should she want to go through that and any other cases that we learn about.
That half million is a drop in the ocean to us all when it comes to our rights.
SW had much much more and could have done so much with that money, in my opinion they threw away the money and any goodwill, pretty much ruined a charity. That's on them.

Yes, we could have set up a women's centre somewhere — and then TRAs could have threatened to picket it to get it shut down if they weren't allowed through the doors.

We could have set up a rape counselling resource for female victims of rape — and TRAs would have targeted it and demanded access.

Or we could have held a lesbian or women's music festival (female performers for female people) — and TRAs would have tried to get in and picketed it as they did MichFest.

Everything that women want to do to improve their lot — stand for women-only shortlists, compete in sport, set up businesses by women for women — are under attack by male-sexed people.

If anyone else responded like this, people would be talking about serious MH issues.

Yes, agree Terfyfdactly 👍

One of the perks of wearing the blue fleece of manliness (and not the blush pink coat and heels of femininity) is I get to waste my money however I damn well please. Without needing the approval of RMW or anyone else.

I can only say that it's a case of caveat lector for that piece. Readers would be well advised to consider both the platform and interviewee before deciding how much value to assign to the perspectives and guidance that are expressed within it.

OT: I sometimes wonder if Jonathan Swift would have enjoyed the intellectual side of all this enormously and engaged in various tirades that would result in a C21 version of A Tale of A Tub with each sibling now representing a reformation of material reality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Tale_of_a_Tub

The transwoman was surprised I clocked her as a transwoman, even though I'd been drinking.

I am still astonished that she appeared to think I'd harm her. At the very most I'd have given her a Paddington hard stare. I still don't know if her tearful reaction was shock, genuine fear or manipulation.

Perhaps listening TRAs saying that women like me are actively harmful?

Anyhoo I'm off topic. Thanks for listening.

I think TRA's are the people who are doing damage to trans people. Like Mermaids - busy telling them that everyone hates them.

RMW being appointed junior to IO was such a blatant insult to Allison.