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.

RMW has a VERY selective memory/opinion (take your pick!) on what constitutes unpleasant.

Women saying men aren't women appears to be unpleasant to Robin. However Robin saying some women are evil, and telling some other women to keep stirring their cauldrons appears to just be for shits and giggles!

Some people just were born in the wrong century weren't they?

No cauldrons, no witch prickers, no ducking stools, and they'd have been so good at it.

I thought that. I feel a bit mean, but seriously, we know!

The reclamation of 'witches' as a derisory term has been ongoing for decades. I wonder when it was last really used as an insult, outwith certain antedeluvian enclaves?

I can think of much more effective insults. 😊

Just want to say part through reading this thread that Scots Gov cannot appeal to the ECHR because they are not an individual or a group of individuals, suffering from some human rights infringement so it was never a runner.

An as for the shambolic good law project they may well never get a case before a judicial review, as one has to seek leave to apply, and even if they did they would be asking a lower court to overturn the SC ruling, which will not happen. It is all hot air.

Flipping good point

From an online dictionary:

". Éminence Grise (French term):
Meaning: A person who exercises power or influence, but not through an official position. They are often influential advisors or decision-makers operating behind the scenes.

Synonyms: Grey eminence, power broker, elder statesman.

Example: Civil servants who have power but don't hold official positions are often described as "éminences grises,"

Well I never.

I assume that a judicial review could be over the justices' decision not to allow the interventions in the Supreme Court proceedings but the deadline for doing that would have passed some time ago.

Oh wow, many thanks Manderley although I kind of prefer eminent squeezes now

Boiledbeetle

RMW has a VERY selective memory/opinion (take your pick!) on what constitutes unpleasant.
Women saying men aren't women appears to be unpleasant to Robin. However Robin saying some women are evil, and telling some other women to keep stirring their cauldrons appears to just be for shits and giggles!

A more cynical person than I might be led to conclude that there's some gargantuan hypocrisy going on there.

Thanks for this... only halfway through but it's a great summary so far!

This always makes me smile because grise means pigs/swine in Danish (singular gris) so I intially read it as eminent/influential/powerful pigs and then mentally translate it

It's great isn't it? Although I was mistaken in that he's a solicitor, not a barrister.

Women’s hour should be for women. Not men.

I woke with the realisation that RMW is prepared to allow third spaces for religious women because they are adhering to rules established by men.
What a very unpleasant man he is, calling people evil.

@Treaclewell I’ve just listened this morning and have yet to pick my jaw up off the floor. And reading your point just now is very striking! That interview was an own goal. Right? I feel like either RMW didn’t do a very good job at presenting opinions or…or…or…there is no logic to the arguments that RMW makes.

I wonder how in this fantasy that everyone will do not what the SC judgment says but what a barrister with a great deal of biased personal investment decrees, how the barrister plans to 'police' this space.

Personal interview of women perhaps to see if they qualify under tight criteria for his permission to escape men in a state of undress?

Some kind of applied for key or card?

Toilets and other single sex spaces are rarely subject to inspection on entry, which is why men keep telling us they’re going to keep using women’s spaces and also make specious claims about genital inspection.

The reality is that women complain if men are present in their spaces. If they complain fast, and the men are (mal)lingering, that might result in an unceremonious marching out by security.

If it’s in the workspace or a business providing services, the management are obliged to deal with it. May not be easy, but undoubtedly there are means.

Women are not likely to complain about something normal like other people’s children of a suitable age.

So there’s the difference. Though policing is rarely needed, single sex spaces generally operate on trust and consensus. The SC ruling now makes it clear that women have the right to complain about the men they don’t want in their spaces.

It is not going to create a situation where everyone sticks rigidly to boundaries based on sex. Women will ask for the men they want ejected to be removed. We don’t care about seven year old boys and are not going to start objecting to them any time soon.

In the Middle Ages there were two ways of getting to be tried on the church courts where the punishments were milder. You could prove you were a clerk by showing the lump on your middle right hand finger, bonus if ink stained, from incessant writing. Or you could read a passage fron the Bible. Only they always used the same passage, so people learned it.
Obviously it would need to be a passage from whichever holy book is appropriate, Torah, NT, Quran, Guru Granth Sahib, some Buddhist sura, the Bhagavid Gita. And then there wpuld be the protests from religious leaders about their texts being used for an unclean purpose...

And is very determined to enforce his boundaries and demands yet won’t even countenance women having our own boundaries.

It is not going to create a situation where everyone sticks rigidly to boundaries based on sex. Women will ask for the men they want ejected to be removed. We don’t care about seven year old boys and are not going to start objecting to them any time soon.

Yes this is true, but White is using a similar logic that our side uses to explain how the presence of some bio males stops a space being single sex. The Reindorf/ehrc position on the law is (I think):

• a single sex space is only legal if it has a legit purpose. To eg give womem privacy from men.
• if some of the opposite sex are allowed to use it (eg tw in the womems changing room) then it's no longer single sex and doesn't have that legitimate purpose.
• so the exception for it as a sss no longer applies.
• Any member of the opp sex can sue to be allowed in, and the provider has no defence.

Following that logic, white is thinking the presence of a little boy has the same legal effect.

But the difference is, the legitimate purpose is to keep women safe and/or private from adult men, not from little boys. So the purpose is still served if little boys are present.

I expect we will see arguments that the purpose is still served if tw are allowed in by saying

• males with the pc of age - under 8/9 are treated differently to other males in these circumstances, therefore
• males with the pc of gender reassignment can also be treated differently than other males.

It's all just more effort to make the ruling look unclear.

I also think that White's argument about little boys in the ladies will not have gone down well with any normy listeners. It really does fail to understand women's lives and needs.

Operation let them speak in action. Couldn't be a clearer demonstration that transwomen really don't understand the reality of normal women's lives at all. Especially women with children.

Little boys under 8 don't have 160% the punch power of adult women, unlike adult men. So there's that too.

I haven’t read the full thread, but WTAF have I just listened to? RMW says transwomen have the right to use women’s spaces because otherwise they will be outed? (We all know annyway, there’s no ‘outing’ going on) And the solution is for a third space for women who need to use it due to trauma or religious reasons…what if I use this new third space? Would I not be outing myself as having had trauma in my past? Or perhaps outing my naughty terfy views? Why should I have to do that?!

And RMW says to call a transwoman a man is ‘unpleasant’. Well, the truth may be unpleasant, but it is what it is. I’m not living in a pretend world, thank you very much.

perhaps I’m menopausal and therefore extremely aware of what it is to be a woman at this particular stage of my life, but fucking hell, why do we give these people airtime??

Off to read the rest of the thread now. And swear a lot.