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!

My mistake, should have read your OP more carefully.

Actually you were right as I hadn't realised it was free to view. They're not normally.

Complaints form is here....

thomsonreuterss2elatam.secure.force.com/GLIWeb2CaseForm/?source=127

Actually you were right as I hadn't realised it was free to view. They're not normally.

Evidence of how valuable RMW's contribution is.

WarriorNun · Today 12:24

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

No and when they was here a couple of weeks back, they was rude, bossy and dismissive, not to mention their cauldrons flouncing shot. They is a bad faith debater, ascribing positions and opinions to them's opponents, which the opponents have never expressed.

It's little wonder that they have now come up with their latest pile of reeking bullshit.

…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.

I think the fact that Robin is permanently set to broadcast mode rather than receive somewhat hampers Robins ability to hear and understand our argument.

The actions of this barrister along with other law professionals seem designed to misrepresent the law to their own ends.

I wish there wasn’t an apparent special exemption to be allow normally unacceptable behaviour from the Bar Standards Board for a certain group of individuals. Surely lawyers, if pontificating on the law in public, have to at least try to get it right?

One thing that concerns me, and concerned me at the time, was Maya and Helen’s behaviour when sitting behind RMW at the Women and Equalities Select Committee.

The optics of how that looked were not good and I felt disrespectful to RMW and others giving evidence.

I am also concerned by some of the language used on MN threads where RMW is also posting where at times it feels like deliberate goading or vitriolic which is unpleasant to read.

RMW is open enough to post under their own name, unlike most of us who use the anonymity offered by sites like MN. RMW is also willing to engage in debate in controlled environment like TV, committees etc.

I am not saying RMW hasn’t responded in kind and I was appalled RMW posted on IamSarah’s thread, it was completely unprofessional and inappropriate.

You may not like it but RMW does have a point, albeit one they have also contributed to, which is that people with gender dysphoria are being disproportionately impacted by the current trans vs GC debate.

I do not agree with a lot of RMWs points but on occasion they have made a fair point. The Article is written from a naturally biased position but some points are fair. Others are not.

I have said on many threads I am GC and believe sex is immutable and that single sex spaces mean biological sex.

However, I also believe that a very small number of people have gender dysphoria and they should be treated with dignity and respect.

I do not believe children should be given puberty blockers, cross sex hormones or surgery. Personally I would like to see the age of consent to be 21 but realistically see it being set at 18 .

There are several area that RMW (and others) fails to address, one is predominantly biological males with paraphillia’s including AGP, voyeurism, exhibitionism etc. using the trans umbrella to enable their fetishes. This widening of the trans umbrella is doing untold harm to women and people with gender dysphoria. These people sit between rapists who claim to be trans and people with gender dysphoria.

The second is accurate data collection about the impact of medical treatment, transition and de-transition, crimes etc.

There are others but this is turning into war and peace.

RichardBarrister · Today 14:54

I think the fact that Robin is permanently set to broadcast mode rather than receive somewhat hampers Robins ability to hear and understand our argument.

That's evident and I am convinced that Robyn doesn't want to hear counter arguments, because Robyn is utterly convinced of Robyn's rectitude and therefore, doesn't want to do anything other than hector, harangue and browbeat.

Diamondsmile · Today 14:54

However, I also believe that a very small number of people have gender dysphoria and they should be treated with dignity and respect.

Question anyone here and you'll find the same response: go on, wear what you want, give yourself a female name, go out and about in safety, but be respectful to women.

My concern is not so much what RMW is saying but that a company like PLC have promoted and allowed RMW to broadcast RMW's views as fact. As I said earlier, imagine saying "if you find out one of your employees is a Muslim/black the first thing to do is not panic". Totally offensive and there would be a massive outcry. I'm shocked that this well respected company is promoting this inaccurate and offensive content as the law.

MuffinWoman · Today 15:06

Totally offensive and there would be a massive outcry. I'm shocked that this well respected company is promoting this inaccurate and offensive content as the law.

I wonder if it is, in fact, in breach of the Equalities Act?

@MuffinWoman I have not been able to see the video. I should have referenced the Independent article pp had linked to as that was what I was responding to.

As an HR professional I agree with you that advice on legal and HR/employer sites should ensure the legal position is accurate and not making stereotypical assumptions. You are correct “don’t panic” if you have a GC employee is wholly inappropriate.

You may not like it but RMW does have a point, albeit one they have also contributed to, which is that people with gender dysphoria are being disproportionately impacted by the current trans vs GC debate.

It's almost as if TRAs letting fetishists under the trans umbrella has backfired on the original people they purported to support...🤔

That is rather like saying how awful it is that someone's feelings have been hurt by a demand to stop kicking them in the shins.

The issue is not how hurtful the criticism and negative attention feels.

The issue is that kicking people in the shins is unacceptable, and the one being kicked cannot reasonably be expected to just submit to it quietly and let the kicker carry on undisturbed in hurting them.

Crikey haven't police requested that people stop speculating online about the details surrounding this young person's death? Threads have been deleted on here for doing as much. You'd think that this individual, being a lawyer, would know better.

@BenCoopersSupportWren exactly. The problem TRAs, Stonewall etc are facing is how do they distance themselves from rapists whilst promoting self ID.

@MuffinWoman thanks to your link I’ve now seen the video. You are right it’s presented in such a way as to appear reasonable and fact based when it’s not.

A neutral approach would be to say GI and GC beliefs are both protected under the Religion & Belief PC. The manifestation of both beliefs can be lawful or unlawful etc. These are possible areas to consider e.g. respecting peoples pronouns, providing single sex and unisex facilities etc.

I am also concerned by some of the language used on MN threads where RMW is also posting where at times it feels like deliberate goading or vitriolic which is unpleasant to read.

Why is it you don't see RMW turning up here to lecture us as goading?

Do you think it was goady for RMW to post on a support thread for Sarah who is taking Brighton Rape Crisis when RMW is part of BRC legal team. That was probably the most vile manifestation of misogyny I've ever seen on MN.

Yet more 'please don't upset the person kicking you in the shins by asking them to stop it because the negative attention isn't nice for them'.

Almost all the visible responses on Twitter, including one from an advocate from the Faculty of Advocates, stated that this essay was very poor and was wrong on many points of the law.

There was also a response in Scottish Legal, published here:

www.scottishlegal.com/articles/michael-foran-getting-the-equality-act-right

Robin White is as mysogynistic, biased and blinkered as it’s possible to be. Misrepresentation of the laws that should protect women can come as no surprise to regular posters.

See also: pressuring the WHO to drop gender dysphoria as a mental illness.

I wonder why?

Could it be his sex?

PriOn1 · Today 16:11

There was also a response in Scottish Legal, published here:

Thank you for linking to that clarification.

I've just noticed that the review, which I read when it first came out without registering, is by the wonderful Naomi Cunningham.

RMW is currently being criticised for a lack of intersectional thinking over on the Transgender UK subreddit, so if you wanted to make a complaint you could point out that Robin’s statements are offensive to both GC feminists and other BBQ trans people!

Glamour magazine have published a particularly egregious by Charlie Craggs…