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!

Are those whose own beliefs are diametrically opposed to the beliefs of some other group usually assigned the role to interpret the latter? Marxists explaining ultra-conservative beliefs or vice versa? That seems to guarantee a biased explanation.

RMW's beliefs seem to be diametrically opposed to those of gender critical feminism.

"A barrister should know better than to skirt this close to prejudicing an ongoing investigation with culture war speculation unmoored from law"

twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1625484927964676097

I remember, @nepeta, watching Owen Jones interview Munroe Bergdorf and OJ asked that interviewee what gender critical beliefs were. Cue a whole shedload of manure.

@FOJN you clearly did not read all of my post with your selective posting.

I also said “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.”

White absolutely hates women that don't agree with gender identity ideas.

They have set themselves up for disappointment (they being White and others with the same obsessively pedantic view of themselves as the sex they are not).

The world was never just going to go along with this farce.

But they won't will they? Instead, they will use this misguided child as a stick to beat people with, like the bizzare religious zealots they are.

Wasn't that the book which RMW was heavily referencing on multiple threads on this board at the time until it was pointed out that various court cases around the publication date had made numerous statements made in the book utterly obsolete?

WTF?! RMW says (according to the transcript):

[I]t would be wrong to have the religious person proselitizing to gay people in the workplace and saying, "you shouldn't live that lifestyle". We would recognise that would be wrong. But equally it would be wrong for gay people, perhaps, to flaunt their existence in a harassing way in front of that religious person. So there blatantly is a balance.

How does a gay person "flaunt their existence in a harassing way"? And does a transwoman using the women's toilets in front of gender-critical employees amount to the same thing? If only RMW could materialise to tell us!

How does a gay person "flaunt their existence in a harassing way?”

Benefit of the doubt: they mean PDA? But that would be equally wrong for a heterosexual person to do “in a harassing way.”

The more I think, the less I can see any doubt to give them the benefit of. How can it not be homophobic?

How does a gay person "flaunt their existence in a harassing way"?

By coming out of the closet as a homosexual. Being open. Saying so. Being Out and Proud.

Because their existence states a belief in biology and reality that some find distressing to encounter.

I suspect you'd find a similar belief that women flaunt their womanness by saying no to men. And referring to their biology. And stating the facts of their biological reality and saying further no that this does not ever apply to a biological male.

I wonder if RMW means stuff like forcing people to wear rainbow badges or making them feel uncomfortable when they say they don't want to join in on LGB events.

Is pointing out RMW's absence from this thread tempting fate?

What does Whittle mean by grieving for “the world we thought we’d achieved in 2005”? Was Whittle involved in a successful 2005 campaign to prevent teenagers carrying knives? There has been a shocking number of “peer on peer” knife attacks with teenage/young victims in recent years, including a 12 year old girl victim just 15 months ago at a Christmas lights event. We certainly should grieve for the loss of a world where teenagers don’t carry knives.

I’m not aware of a 2005 “achievement” on prevention of teen knife crime, so I’d be interested to know what Whittle achieved to make a difference to teen knife crime.

@TheBiologyStupid @FOJN this is what I mean about goading.

@Diamondsmile Who do you think disagrees with this: "However, I also believe that a very small number of people have gender dysphoria and they should be treated with dignity and respect"

This is a common position. People are not arguing for treating trans people, people with gender dysphoria or any other vulnerable group with anything other than dignity and respect but that does not entitle males to access female spaces. The problem arises if people like Robin choose, for their own benefit, to define respect as letting males into female spaces. Then there's a problem. Caused by people like Robin. You are not stating anything unusual here but you are demonstrating a misunderstanding of most people's positions.

@howmanybicycles @SinnerBoy Both of you feel I have stated the obvious, but not all GC people accept gender dysphoria exists and some refuse to use preferred pro nouns etc.

I know a lot of people hold nuanced views like I do, but not all do which is why I feel the need to state the obvious.

Wasn’t Thomson Reuters one of the co-creators of the Dentons document? V worrying that the service so many lawyers rely on could get the law wrong. I wonder if many of the materials in the employment section of PLC need careful scrutiny.

‘Treating someone with respect and dignity’ does not mean you need to uphold their fantasy, nor that it is helpful to them to do so. If you use wrong-sex pronouns then you are pretending to see them as something you do not. That is not treating them respectfully. And nor is it treating women respectfully to suggest womanhood is something to be identified into. One once you have called a man ‘her’ to make him feel better, how are you going to stop him using the women’s changing rooms? You are already complicit.

I refuse to use female pronouns for a male. That is a matter of respect and dignity for women IMO. It is not OK for men to culturally appropriate women's experience and it is not OK to effectively deny the oppression which women experience. I think any male asking to be called 'she' is committing an act of male aggression. I will try and avoid using pronouns at all but it is not as simple as 'if you respect, you'll do what they want' because that is not looking at the bigger picture.

Some people rightly state that there are different motivations for being trans. It is not helpful to pretend otherwise. That is not the same as saying that gender dysphoria does not exist. Who have you heard say that?

It certainly raises questions about the trustworthiness of the rest of PLC’s materials doesn’t it?

I do enjoy observing the deletions on this site. 😁 Perhaps MNHQ needs to update the special rules for this section so everyone knows the B-word is verboten?

I think the verboten words probably vary based on exactly which one of The Eyes is pushing the report button?