Women's Hour - TRA barrister on

[Apollo441]

Anyone care to discuss the content of today's women's hour. They had RMW on who's interpretation of the Supreme Court judgement seems questionable. Please stick to discussing content as we have already had a thread deleted.

I thought Nuala did okay with the questions. And she did push back against some of the things RMW said. It's a low bar but I don't think it would have been the same interview 6 months ago.

A Very Important M*n said all the women who want to stop him using the ladies, are mean & wrong & he shall ignore them just like he will ignore the Supreme Courtwho are also very mean and wrong.

WILL NO ONE THINK ABOUT THE MEN WHO WANT TO USE THE LADIES CHANGING ROOMS??????

etc

Apparently Sex matters are on WH on Wednesday! Does this mean women’s hour will finally have that super meanie to the men, Helen Joyce on? <faints>

I'm annoyed because I put quote a long post on that thread! Mindful of the deletion:

I thought the interview was good and fair. No special voice, and pressed White on quite important things, but let her set out exactly wheres she's coming from.

I don't think some bits will have gone down well with even the more #bekind listeners.
It is worth listening but isn't up yet.

The proposal was that religious women who dont want to share loos with tw should be given private spaces, presumably a single room toilet.

White thinks the European Court of human rights will overturn it (or I guess, issue a ruling that the EA by that reading is incompatible with the convention). She said there are cases being worked up, including one by the judge mccloud.

Sometimes I think its important to think about what this discourse means/how it appears to the person on the Clapham Omnibus (or indeed to quote the original - 'man' on the Clapham Omnibus) ie the ordinary person in the street.

I would imagine absolutely no thought in the case planning so far has been given to women's rights, women's human rights, (which are equal to mens of all identities), and the convention of women's sex based spaces, plus the very very ample evidence of what has happened to women while men insisted it was fine and commandeered them and their resources. There is a lot more of this evidence and problems and cases than ten years ago, visible impact, numbers of women affected.

Because it isnt just which loo the barrister fancies, it's prisons and hospital wards and HCPs and lesbians permitted to meet without male harassment, it's women forced to undress in front of any bloke that fancies being there, etc etc etc

That particular barrister cares absolutely nothing for any woman, or anything that happens to a woman in pursuit of that barrister meeting their own personal desires.

Unfortunately the ECHR has to. And other people have rights too.

We all know even the terfirst women only space or whatever the new “women’s loo” is called will be colonised

I would add - too much focus on toilets. Nula could have raised specific other spaces where it's more serious.

And someone on the other thread pointed out that WH airing these different views helps give the general feel of 'oh its all unclear, wewon't have to change anything'.

But in general I think its good to gealall the views out there, treated as a normal political argument.

And if we are considering international obligations, there is also the little matter of the UK being a signatory to CEDAW (ratified 1986) which explicitly creates and protects women's sex based rights and our right to privacy, dignity and safety.

The Convention defines discrimination against women as "...any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field."

As pp says, the 'toilets' make it all sound so harmless, but it's the thin edge of the bludgeon.

As a barrister walks into the women's toilets, a woman has to enter a shower with a male sex offender in her prison, women are blocked out of refuges and unable to receive health care unless they submit to meeting the needs of a male HCP, and nurses are forced to undress for a man in boxers with holes in them asking when they're going to get their clothes off.

And why? So a man does not have to emotionally cope with his sexed reality.

It is NOT innocent, it is NOT ok for men to throw women over like this in pursuit of their own needs, and how sad men feel about having to permit women safety, dignity, privacy and consent, it is NOT women's problem.

So let met get this straight: RMW offered as solution to have a space for men, for transwomen and women and women only? Which is exactly what the EHCR stated in the guidelines that all transactivists despise?

Oooo, how terfy of Robin

So we could see:
Female terfy bigots
Women
Males
With urinals in 2 of them to accommodate the men who would be using the women’s and the males?

I listened live and RMW did indeed suggest this as a solution. The thinking behind it appeared to be it was okay to make a special, different place for religious women so TW and all the other women could use the existing facilities.

RMW genuinely didn't seem to recognise the 3rd space idea was what has been proposed as a solution previously.

I assume the thinking behind RMWs stance was that anyone can be excluded except TW because that's not fair (presumably because RMW thinks TW are special in some way?). The end result is still the same though ie Single Sex space for women who want it and mixed sex for those who don't. That sounds fine by me.

RMW also tried to equate women who take their young sons into the ladies to use the loo with TW using the ladies loo which was a jaw dropping new low and IMO just goes to show how out of touch TW like RMW are with biological women (and reality).

Yep - women’s space, mixed sex, and men’s space. Thanks for mansplaining that to us Robin, it’s so much clearer now.

MNHQ have commented on another thread clarifying the deletion.

Where, which thread?

Whether or not the presenting team have kids should be irrelevant. I'm perfectly familiar with the rules - I have no kids, and never look after any. The only 'specialist knowledge' needed is using changing rooms and being able to read the signs that are commonly posted. It's well within the scope of journalistic research for a programme planning to spend a whole week on the topic.

I’ve just found it www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5333372-aibu-to-think-that-if-someone-appears-on-mainstream-media-mn-should-not-delete-the-discussion?reply=144227738

Rob the barrister said people should play nicely and not be hateful. However Rob the barrister stood by his previous comments of calling certain terfy women ‘evil’!

Also believes a separate private space should be available for women who do not want to be exposed to biological men (however they identify) - not sure if we are allowed to call it ‘women’s’ - go figure!

I'm curious re what grounds he proposes to bring it to ECtHR? Maybe there is some article in the Convention on Human Rights on which to base it. I would have thought that ScotGov would be the appellant, and I'm not certain that an unconnected individual can take a case.

Any lawyers about to clarify?

It was the usual command for women to respect their betters.

It will obvs not be reciprocal. One does not talk to the staff.

IANAL, but from what I recall from the deleted thread, RMW's argument was that Godwin put an obligation on states to recognise a change of gender. RMW said that recognition must include using opposite sex services. I think this is nonsense, because it's adding a whole extra layer to the meaning of the word "recognise".

A poster on the deleted thread also pointed out that the ECtHR will have to take into account that other people (women) have rights, too.

And of course you are right about the question of standing - RMW and pals would have to start again from the lowest courts with a new case.

My understanding is that one of the grounds is because the SC declined to hear from Vic (former HC Master) and a TiW academic in breach of S6(1) HRA. So yes it can be argued they can appeal - will they be successful? None of the legal experts I’ve read believe they will get anywhere near a full hearing, let alone a win 🤞.

Sex Matters are going to be on Women's Hour on Wens replying to RMW

Someone called Robin, who sounded like a bloke, was on WH. He was introduced as a lawyer. However, he didn't seem to understand the Supreme Court Decision.

His Human Rights trump those of Women and Girls it seems. I took from it that he felt that Some are more worthy than Others, when it comes to Human Rights.

Some iffy legal appeal will win in Europe he claimed.
My arse it will. I look forward to that with interest as I need a good laugh at the moment.

He said that women can ask for their own spaces if we don't want him in ours. Rights which we, and those before us, have already fought for.
He didn't mention that bit.
It was almost as if Women's existing protections in law had just appeared overnight thanks to Santa and we should give them up to Him.

If we complain we are just MEAN and UNKIND.

He had a relative allegedly at the Battle of Cable Street he said. The relevance of which was lost on me, seeing as the Supreme Court had clarified existing law, which he continued to misrepresent.

A late relative's actions in the 1930's doesn't make Robin some kind of Human Rights guru in 2025.

Women's Hour should be renamed Man's Hour. In my view.