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!

Seriously? To many women here people like RMW epitomise the misogyny of trans ideology.

RMW claims to be a woman but, in my opinion, has nothing but contempt for women. Indeed, has admitted that they would never change their deep, male voice as it lends them power as a barrister. Picking and choosing aspects of 'gender' to further a detrimental ideology, and their own career.

RMW works in opposition to women trying to preserve their rights, spaces and dignity.

You are neatly demonstrating an aspect of gender ideology that damages women. And what the 'gender' means in gender critical and why we're critical of it.

That when they go low, we go high. Why the fuck should women go high? What is it about women that means they have to be more pure, better behaved, and appear nicer, than the men trying to destroy their rights?

Could it be their gender? Gender - the expectations and roles that women are supposed to fulfil, based on their sex?

I did read the thread. I was on the thread at the time. The responses were all directed at Robin’s words and Robin’s actions. Robin is a public figure with a public profile appearing on tv, who gets to write articles exploiting the death of a child in national newspapers. The numbers argument - one of Robin vs all of us is unfair - is absolute bullshit. Robin has a discordant level of influence compared to the rest of us. We don’t get to appear on tv, or write articles in national newspapers.

Robin (gamely) appears here. Robin expresses one opinion. Many others express opposing opinions. This is just like any other thread on Mumsnet, like AIBU.

I didn’t say Robin should stop talking about law matters. I said if Robin wants to talk about law matters publicly then Robin should expect to be criticised for it. During the hearing Robin stated something that was absolute nonsense and Maya called him out on it and then giggled at themselves for doing so. They were not mocking Robin.

So what if people bring up the events of the Bailey vs Stonewall hearing. Should that behaviour be glossed over now?

It is utter gaslighting bullshit to claim RMW is any sort of victim. Robin is using a position of influence as a barrister and trans activist to advocate for the destruction of women’s rights and the medicalisation of children and is prepared to use the death of a child to advance that agenda. Robin gets the respect Robin deserves.

In which case, it's ridiculously naive to suggest that true gender dysphoria has nothing fo do with homophobia. Of course it could.

I still haven't had an answer to my question of what causes the gender dysphoria that is not caused by all the, er, known causes.

Having gender dysphoria for a long time is not a cause.

Robin gets the respect Robin deserves.

Quite.

@NotBadConsidering So what if people bring up the events of the Bailey vs Stonewall hearing. Should that behaviour be glossed over now?

You mean use a slur that implies a professional failing to goad one person when it has been repeatedly stated they were not responsible.

Robin has a discordant level of influence compared to the rest of us. We don’t get to appear on tv, or write articles in national newspapers. I agree most of us don’t have that profile but some do e.g. Sarah Phillimore is on MN and has appeared on TV etc. There are other high profile GC people who post on MN and in the media.

I didn’t say Robin should stop talking about law matters. I said if Robin wants to talk about law matters publicly then Robin should expect to be criticised for it.

Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood your point.

During the hearing Robin stated something that was absolute nonsense and Maya called him out on it and then giggled at themselves for doing so. They were not mocking Robin.
I didn’t say they were mocking Robin, I said the optics on their behaviour did not look good. Have you ever been in a parliamentary committee meeting ? Trust me observers don’t “call out” someone who is being questioned, that type of behaviour is not appropriate. The fact they appeared to be sitting behind Robin giggling for what ever reason looked unprofessional and sadly the clip is likely to turn up at unhelpful times. It certainly gave Robin ammunition for the article.

Why do you expect me to answer that? I don't know exactly but the narratives which society has about gender are clearly indicated. My point was about the fact that you suggested that homophones does not cause gender dysphoria. Of course it can.

@Datun @howmanybicycles bottom line, no one knows what causes gender dysphoria in pre-school age children and I understand studies over a long period (50 years) have shown this can for many resolve itself with the onset of puberty. I personally don’t believe pre-school age children are homophobic but accept you and others disagree.

Those studying the very recent phenomenon of rapid onset gender dysphoria at or around puberty with no previous signs of gender dysphoria have suggested their gender dysphoria may of a different variety with potentially different causes. (Social contagion is an important factor in other conditions starting in adolescence, and would therefore have to be investigated as a possible mechanism to developing the condition.) I agree with you that homophobia may be a contributing factor for rapid onset gender dysphoria.

I didn’t say they were mocking Robin, I said the optics on their behaviour did not look good. Have you ever been in a parliamentary committee meeting ? Trust me observers don’t “call out” someone who is being questioned, that type of behaviour is not appropriate. The fact they appeared to be sitting behind Robin giggling for what ever reason looked unprofessional and sadly the clip is likely to turn up at unhelpful times. It certainly gave Robin ammunition for the article.

The optics🤣🤣 Really? Who looks at that clip and wavers away from the GC side of the debate because of their behaviour then?!

Ammunition for Robin’s article? Firstly, Robin is more than capable of plucking whatever Robin wants out of the air to make a point. Second, of all the things in that article, that’s the bit that stands out? Not the part where Robin states we don’t know the motive for the murder, but then writes an entire article blaming “anti trans” activists?

So if women “behaved” Robin wouldn’t be able to pad out such an awful article with their behaviour? The rest would be ok though?

Ok.

@NotBadConsidering The optics🤣🤣 Really? Who looks at that clip and wavers away from the GC side of the debate because of their behaviour then?! No one, but imagine if that clip had been shown when introducing Sarah at the start of the debate with Robin how would neutrals and those new to the subject view Sarah?

Ammunition for Robin’s article? Yes, I saw the clip at the time I thought that could comeback to bite them. The video clip does not contain background, context etc. which allows people to put their own spin on it. A completely bizarre example I know but in 2006 Andy Murray very clearly jokingly said about a World Cup match he was supporting who ever England were playing against. 3 weeks ago someone said to me he was deadly serious and that they don’t like him because of that one comment. My point was that once a clip like that exists it can be manipulated and twisted to suit a specific agenda.

Firstly, Robin is more than capable of plucking whatever Robin wants out of the air to make a point. Agreed, but why help them.

Second, of all the things in that article, that’s the bit that stands out? Not the part where Robin states we don’t know the motive for the murder, but then writes an entire article blaming “anti trans” activists? No, and I have said the article is biased and I disagreed with much of what was written but I did agree with some points. I can be GC and still find things I agree with on the other side of the argument.

So if women “behaved” Robin wouldn’t be able to pad out such an awful article with their behaviour? You are twisting my words. The rest would be ok though? No.

I didn’t say they were mocking Robin, I said the optics on their behaviour did not look good. Have you ever been in a parliamentary committee meeting ? Trust me observers don’t “call out” someone who is being questioned, that type of behaviour is not appropriate.

Sometimes people laugh at inappropriate times. Maya and Helen must eat drink and sleep this nonsense and are probably just completely worn down by the farce of it all. As women's rights are incrementally removed perhaps the only thing left to us will be our sense of humour and our ability to laugh in the face of absurdity.

As the responses have shown GC people do have different interpretations of gender dysphoria proving my point.

Then perhaps TRAs and AGPs should stop clouding the issue by claiming "but muh gender dysphoria!" in every situation in which they want to get their own way.

I believe GD exists. I don't believe falsely promising people, especially children, that they can change sex or performing surgery to turn them into a pale facsimile of the opposite sex is the appropriate treatment for it. If indulging their delusion is appropriate, why are we not offering bariatric surgery to people with anorexia? Why do we not encourage people with schizophrenic auditory hallucinations that the voices are real and they should do as they say?

Yes, I saw the clip at the time I thought that could comeback to bite them.

But how is it coming back to bite them? It’s a delusional concept. Who’s doing the biting? TRAs who hate them anyway? Are you seriously suggesting that such an occurrence would have those people wavering move away from their side of their debate? That line in Robin’s article is just one line amongst many of nonsense. It won’t persuade anyone. Either TRAs will love Robin’s article or anyone with compassion will see it for the horrendous attempt to hijack a child’s death.

My point was that once a clip like that exists it can be manipulated and twisted to suit a specific agenda.

Who cares? Maya and Helen won’t. They’re both, as we all are, completely used to TRAs manipulating and twisting what they want for their agenda. It’s so trite.

Who looks at that clip and wavers away from the GC side of the debate because of their behaviour then?! No one, but imagine if that clip had been shown when introducing Sarah at the start of the debate with Robin how would neutrals and those new to the subject view Sarah?

Who is Sarah who you are referring to here? It was Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce who were sitting behind Robin.

My point was that once a clip like that exists it can be manipulated and twisted to suit a specific agenda.

You could read what Helen Joyce has written about what happened and make your own mind up.

www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-36/

Do you really think you're going to get the full picture if you only listen to what TRAs say?

@BenCoopersSupportWren agreed.

@OldCrone you are absolutely right it was Maya and Helen not Sarah Phillimore. Sorry.

@OldCrone I did read Helen’ explanation at the time and understood what happened. I stand by my view that how ever innocent, how ever involuntary the laughter was the clip makes them look unprofessional.

The reality is the clip does not contain the explanation which is why it can be used to incorrectly influence peoples perceptions. Not everyone is as informed about the debate as posters on this forum and would take it at face value.

Before insulting me by saying I only listen to what TRAs say, may I respectfully suggest you read my posts on here and will see that I am GC but accept there are people with gender dysphoria and recognise the issue is predominantly men with paraphillia’s such as AGP. I believe children should not be given puberty blockers or surgery.

I don't expect you to answer that because I was asking diamond. Sorry, I know I was quoting your comment, but I was agreeing with you.

homophobia absolutely causes gender dysphoria.

I am bloody glad they didn't sit there with straight faces while absolute nonsense was argued in front of them. I obviously have a different threshold for what constitutes inappropriate reactions - when men who identify with the stereotype of women smirk while female survivors speak of their trauma, when they shake their heads or laugh or scoff when frontline workers explain how that trauma means that males cannot be included in the female-only therapeutic environment without harming female survivors. That's my threshold.

Rolling your eyes at men pontificating, demonstrating their extreme ignorance on an issue of extreme importance to women is not. I'd have eyerolled to the best of my abilities. Something Angela Merkel was famous for by the way, and she ran a whole country for a decade and a half.

Ah I see! Diamond seemed to think otherwise!

Give that gender dysphoria isnt verifiable, other than talking to the person concerned, you can only go on what the person says, and their circumstances.

Clinicians at the Tavistock absolutely thought that homophobia played a huge part. And were quoted as saying there will be no gay kids left.

The children themselves may not have been homophobic, but their parents are. Or sexist.

If you've ever listened to susie greens TEDTalk, the fact that her male child liked to play with dolls was a massive problem for her and her husband.

likewise jazz Jennings. Something was deemed wrong with jazz, because, as a male child, they wanted to wear a tutu.

There are numerous narratives of a children whose parents claim is the opposite sex, where their explanation is completely reliant on gender stereotyping.

Effeminate boys and butch girls are deemed the opposite sex. Many of them will grow up to gay.

Stephanie Davis Arai of transgender trend, who receives thousands upon thousands of emails from concerned parents has said she has yet to see a child identify as the opposite sex who wasn't either gay, autistic, or had suffered some kind of trauma.

Gender dysphoria is a symptom.

What do you think it is?

Totally agreem. Robin made of fool of themselves by talking about something of which they had no knowledge (why not get experts in???) and then using that falsehood to justify male supremacy. Then Robin complains that people don't take Robin seriously. It's pathetic and manipulative. Robin has no respect for women but demands respect whatever nonsense Ro in spouts.