Any lawyers seen the video of RMW "explaining" GC beliefs?

[MuffinWoman]

I don't think I can say what was said here due to copyright but in my opinion it is an intensely biased explanation of GC beliefs. Why get someone so opposed to GC beliefs to explain what they are in such a partisan way?

In essence, it presents GC as an extreme belief that is challenging for employers to accommodate (it says that if an employer finds out they have an employee with GC beliefs the first thing they should do is not panic!!!) and says that people with GC beliefs think trans people are "wrong" and should not be supported.

It is on one of the leading legal subscription websites - not sure if I can say which but it's not Lexis!

^criticism!!!!

MichaelFabricantWig · Today 09:55

scottish legal news posted this absolute shocker yesterday
twitter.com/scottishlegal/status/1625119211570835459?s=46&t=qP5uW9jJG-yn84CwSYof7w

The author wrote this shocking falsehood:

What this means is that a “safe space” service provider, such as Rape Crisis Scotland, could refuse to offer its services to trans women, if they believed, and could establish, that this was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as protecting cis women. (They don’t apply this exception because they don’t believe trans women service users pose any threat to cis women service users. Their services are in fact expressly trans inclusive).

My bold, this is not true, they accept transw, because they've been bullied into it, by means of the threat of having their funding stopped. The author surely knows that this is the case.

Robin’s agenda has always been thinly veiled, but in the last month, that veil has dropped and Robin is all in.

This is a disgusting article that is structured by the very technique that Robin argues is carried out by journalists and politicians. RMW clearly knows no shame and is now prepared to do anything to advance that agenda.

Whenever RMW's expertise on this area of law comes up, for some reason this book review always comes to mind: www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/

You are right, SinnerBoy and MichaelFabricantWig, that Scottish Legal News article is shockingly bad. How can a legal bod get this so wrong?

And the "safe spaces" terminology is deliberate obfuscation. This term does not appear in the Equality Act and for good reason - the Equality Act is about people with a protected characteristic and their needs allowing for people who do not share that characteristic to be excluded from services or spaces.

"Single-sex spaces" or "single-sex services" makes this clear, as does the even more prescriptive "male-only" or female-only".

It's not publicly available, it's a subscription service.

Oops, I meant to include an extract from the Legal Feminist review's Conclusion:

If the objective of the book was to increase understanding of the law in this area, it must be judged an abject failure. Even a reader with little prior knowledge will be struck by the regularity with which the authors simply give up on the task of analysis [...] In some of these cases, there is genuine reason for uncertainty; in others, the law is clear enough, and the uncertainty imaginary. In both cases, readers looking for assistance will be disappointed by the authors’ repeated unwillingness even to attempt to provide it. If a pair of guides on a difficult mountain path were as consistently flummoxed as the authors of this book, their clients would be saying their prayers. In truth, there is little of either guidance or practical utility in White and Newbegin’s “practical guide”.

TheBiologyStupid · Today 11:53

^Whenever RMW's expertise on this area of law comes up, for some reason this book review always comes to mind: www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/^

That review essentially says, politely but firmly: "What a lot of ignorant and factually incorrect rubbish."

Thanks OP. I’ve found it on PLC and I will have a listen later!

RMW didn't come across as especially knowledgeable nor was able to give convincing arguments in that parliamentary thingy last week.

This thingy:

31 Jan 15:15 Women & Equalities Committee - Scottish GRR Bill www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4731871-31-jan-1515-women-equalities-committee-scottish-grr-bill

Transcript

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/12639/pdf

I found the transcript and video for free online, so it’s not just for subscribers only.

Robin says that gender cries believe that sex is “fixed and immutable.” I think this is fair. Gender critical feminists don’t believe sex can be changed. Robin also says that “services or spaces should be restricted related to natal sex and not gender identity.” This is a bit confused, but I presume it refers to female only spaces as protected in the Equality Act. I think it’s also fair to say that gender critical feminists believe that female only spaces should be for biological females and not males who claim to have a womanly gender identity.

I disagree with the statement that gender critical beliefs entail that “those people who say that they have a gender identity that is different from their natal sex are wrong and should not be supported in having that belief.”This is like saying ‘those people who say they believe in god are wrong and should not be supported in having that belief.” I believe that people believe they have something called a ‘gender identity’ and it’s different from their sex. However, while I think it’s fine for them to have that belief, what I disagree with is that belief means that males literally are female. A male can believe he has a womanly gender identity all he likes - he can knock himself out. But that belief doesn’t mean he gets access to female only services and spaces. I think a fairer characterisation would be to say that gender critical feminists don’t believe that trans people are literally the opposite sex by virtue of what they believe.

I also massively disagree with Robin’s characterisation of these beliefs as ‘challenging’ or ‘extreme’. It’s a bit like a flat earthed saying that those who believe the earth is round have difficult beliefs. Being gender critical is the default position.

I think Whittle’s more strategic and has better impulse control than most TRAs (especially the male ones!)

Strategic enough to see that shamelessly milking and exploiting this child’s death to push the narrative, in the vile manner that some are doing, is going to backfire if the facts that ultimately emerge don’t support the narrative.

"I disagree with the statement that gender critical beliefs entail that “those people who say that they have a gender identity that is different from their natal sex are wrong and should not be supported in having that belief.”This is like saying ‘those people who say they believe in god are wrong and should not be supported in having that belief.”

Absolutely. Robin is a male supremacist but Robin is not intellectually that challenged, so I do not believe that Robin believes this to be true at all. It's very clearly not the case and if Robin actually read any of the threads which Robin comes on here to patronise and proselytise on, Robin would know that. The beliefs I do not support is that a) gender identity is a ubiquitous experience and b) having a gender identity different from their natal sex, entitles one to access to spaces reserved for the opposite sex. This is completely different from what the damaging and slanderous falsehood which Robin is promoting and Robin should be ashamed. Robin is a dangerous person who should not be allowed to make videos like this.

This is like saying ‘those people who say they believe in god are wrong and should not be supported in having that belief.”

Depends what “support” means, doesn’t it? If supporting traditional religious believers meant everyone has to join their religion, I would say that they should not be supported.

Presumably Robin has defined “supporting” people of gender to include everyone being forced to comply with mixed sex spaces, describe themselves with warped language, etc.

I disagree with the statement that gender critical beliefs entail that “those people who say that they have a gender identity that is different from their natal sex are wrong and should not be supported in having that belief.”This is like saying ‘those people who say they believe in god are wrong and should not be supported in having that belief.”

Exactly. Christians have the right to believe that Jesus is the son of God and that he turned water into wine. They just don't have the right to require the rest of us to believe it.

I don’t think men who identify as women should be supported in a belief that they are women, and I am not just referring to by myself here. They are still men and that should be recognised by all.

Though I don’t care if they have some inner gender identity- that is up to them - so long as we don’t have to pretend it changes sex or that single sex spaces, sports, discrimination, words etc are not based on sex.

It's generally considered unhelpful to affirm a delusional state, in all areas of psychology apart from gender misalignment, as far as I can see. This is pink, sparkly exception to the rule. Because reasons.

I don't think that's how copyright works. Just tell us what they said, in your own words.

This is one of the things that frustrates me most about this whole mess. There is just so much bad faith.
If RMW laid out actual gender critical beliefs and criticised those, then I'd be very happy to see it, but it's not.
All 'criticism' of GC feminist beliefs that I've seen involves setting up straw man after straw man and knocking them down. I don't think I've ever seen our beliefs actually represented by the other side.
All that does is generate conflict and it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

I also massively disagree with Robin’s characterisation of these beliefs as ‘challenging’ or ‘extreme’. It’s a bit like a flat earthed saying that those who believe the earth is round have difficult beliefs. Being gender critical is the default position.

This is the type of gaslighting reversal they are masters of.

There is also a transcript of the video

OK if you Google "Robin White Practical Law Gender Critical" it will take you to the video. There is a link to the transcript underneath.