Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Women's Hour - TRA barrister on

254 replies

Apollo441 · 12/05/2025 12:18

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
thenoisiesttermagant · 13/05/2025 10:01

Hotandbothered222 · 13/05/2025 09:45

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.

We don't give these people airtime - the BBC does though. It's a good question why they chose to allow this man to mansplain and misinterpret the law with no actual female to counter his point of view.

Hotandbothered222 · 13/05/2025 10:05

Well in a sense we do because we pay our licence fees and so the BBC is supposed to represent all views (hollow laugh). At least Nuala asked some challenging questions I suppose.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 13/05/2025 10:09

Manderleyagain · 13/05/2025 09:32

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.

Absolutely. But it gives an insight into the level of desperation - that they're resorting to pretending the rights of little boys to safety by being in the company of their mothers in changing rooms / toilets equates to the rights of middle aged men to be alongside those mothers undressing.
The need to safeguard children is so often dismissed by transactivists. Can't imagine why 😑

Datun · 13/05/2025 10:31

MrsOvertonsWindow · 13/05/2025 10:09

Absolutely. But it gives an insight into the level of desperation - that they're resorting to pretending the rights of little boys to safety by being in the company of their mothers in changing rooms / toilets equates to the rights of middle aged men to be alongside those mothers undressing.
The need to safeguard children is so often dismissed by transactivists. Can't imagine why 😑

Quite.

Claiming that the changing room is full of undressing children and therefore men should be allowed in, isn't it quite the winning argument RMW thinks.

BaseDrops · 13/05/2025 10:43

So RMW says to call a transwoman a man is unpleasant.

It does still recognise their humanity unlike cervix haver, menstruator, uterus haver or person with a vagina. All of which were absolutely fine in TRA land and justified because biologically accurate even though they were not depending on age or medical history.

Would it be preferable to use person who used to have a penis and penis haver depending on the individuals circumstances?

ThatPithySheep · 13/05/2025 11:13

ILikeDungs · 12/05/2025 20:44

RMW: they [Mcloud and Whittle] are eminent squeezes from the transworld

What am I mishearing, people?

It was éminence grise e.g someone who exerts influence without having power

TracyCruz · 13/05/2025 11:14

PWUTHAP isn't as catchy as "man" though, is it?

I'm still aghast the original thread was deleted in its entirety.

SerafinasGoose · 13/05/2025 11:18

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…

He's hilarious. Really entertaining. To whom is it necessary for women with a history of sexual trauma to divulge it so as to access a women's-only facility? Who requires this justification? How does he intend to police it? Should it come as any great shocker that a woman with that history might not want to divulge it to an aggressive bunch of male supremacist activisits? This lobby has shown that they actively get off on women's subjugation. Displaying their hard-ons whilst shouting at women in public, the infamous 'Isla' Bryson image (praise be to that photographer), making an early beeline for Vancouver Rape Crisis to harass female victims of sexual assault? What do they expect us to do: stay silent about our abuse or thank men for the privilege of having inflicted it in the first place?

As for trauma being a get-out clause as to why a woman might not choose to use a mixed-sex toilet, this is a 180-degree about-face from the received TRA position that women are 'weaponising your trauma'. What are we do to?, stay silent so as not to inflict our experience of male abuse on the males who actually inflicted it (confused yet?), or to divulge it as justification for a single-sex facility, as well as for the titillation of the males who we know tend to 'enjoy' stories of that type?

Is this confused, convuluted set of self-contradictory arguments really the work of a practising barrister? And if so what's the rationale: keep making up the law to suit yourself and shove in a precedent through the back door - an established MO of this lobby - so that in the end it becomes ingrained and others end up forced to follow it? Of course the TRAs have established form for that sort of thing. But surely there should be sanctions against lawyers like this, who openly ignore the law and make alternative rules up to suit themselves. If this isn't bringing the profession into disrepute and undermining it from within, I'm not sure what is. There are 'allegedly' Bar Standards in place to prevent precisely this. And yet ... crickets.

Let them speak, indeed. Show up this abusive, sadistic fantasy-world for precisely what it it and - if on this point alone - there's no one better qualified to do that than this bloke.

Rollstar · 13/05/2025 11:37

Was anyone interviewed today about the Supreme Court ruling? I’ve just come out of meetings and don’t have time to listen to the whole thing right now to find out.
I thought they were interviewing a different person each day? Or maybe I misunderstood?

MrsOvertonsWindow · 13/05/2025 11:41

SerafinasGoose · 13/05/2025 11:18

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…

He's hilarious. Really entertaining. To whom is it necessary for women with a history of sexual trauma to divulge it so as to access a women's-only facility? Who requires this justification? How does he intend to police it? Should it come as any great shocker that a woman with that history might not want to divulge it to an aggressive bunch of male supremacist activisits? This lobby has shown that they actively get off on women's subjugation. Displaying their hard-ons whilst shouting at women in public, the infamous 'Isla' Bryson image (praise be to that photographer), making an early beeline for Vancouver Rape Crisis to harass female victims of sexual assault? What do they expect us to do: stay silent about our abuse or thank men for the privilege of having inflicted it in the first place?

As for trauma being a get-out clause as to why a woman might not choose to use a mixed-sex toilet, this is a 180-degree about-face from the received TRA position that women are 'weaponising your trauma'. What are we do to?, stay silent so as not to inflict our experience of male abuse on the males who actually inflicted it (confused yet?), or to divulge it as justification for a single-sex facility, as well as for the titillation of the males who we know tend to 'enjoy' stories of that type?

Is this confused, convuluted set of self-contradictory arguments really the work of a practising barrister? And if so what's the rationale: keep making up the law to suit yourself and shove in a precedent through the back door - an established MO of this lobby - so that in the end it becomes ingrained and others end up forced to follow it? Of course the TRAs have established form for that sort of thing. But surely there should be sanctions against lawyers like this, who openly ignore the law and make alternative rules up to suit themselves. If this isn't bringing the profession into disrepute and undermining it from within, I'm not sure what is. There are 'allegedly' Bar Standards in place to prevent precisely this. And yet ... crickets.

Let them speak, indeed. Show up this abusive, sadistic fantasy-world for precisely what it it and - if on this point alone - there's no one better qualified to do that than this bloke.

Edited

That's a powerful speech that represents just how enraged so many women are at this toxic men's rights movement! Flowers

MrsOvertonsWindow · 13/05/2025 11:43

Rollstar · 13/05/2025 11:37

Was anyone interviewed today about the Supreme Court ruling? I’ve just come out of meetings and don’t have time to listen to the whole thing right now to find out.
I thought they were interviewing a different person each day? Or maybe I misunderstood?

Nothing on today. Evidently more time needed to sum up the courage to interview plain speaking women on Women's Hour 🙄

ThatPithySheep · 13/05/2025 11:54

MrsOvertonsWindow · 13/05/2025 11:43

Nothing on today. Evidently more time needed to sum up the courage to interview plain speaking women on Women's Hour 🙄

I thought they said they were covering it all week

SerafinasGoose · 13/05/2025 12:04

MrsOvertonsWindow · 13/05/2025 10:09

Absolutely. But it gives an insight into the level of desperation - that they're resorting to pretending the rights of little boys to safety by being in the company of their mothers in changing rooms / toilets equates to the rights of middle aged men to be alongside those mothers undressing.
The need to safeguard children is so often dismissed by transactivists. Can't imagine why 😑

HOW interesting. There's a thread just appeared elsewhere on the site, 'allegedly' about this precise scenario.

Colour me shocked ...

TracyCruz · 13/05/2025 12:04

ThatPithySheep · 13/05/2025 11:54

I thought they said they were covering it all week

While holding their noses.

Rollstar · 13/05/2025 12:20

MrsOvertonsWindow · 13/05/2025 11:43

Nothing on today. Evidently more time needed to sum up the courage to interview plain speaking women on Women's Hour 🙄

Ah, that’s a shame.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to listen to the end to find out!

Madcats · 13/05/2025 12:22

BBC Womens' Hour describes itself as "The programme that offers a female perspective on the world".

They are going to have to alter the strapline in the light of their preference to invite so many contributors to mansplain to us, won't they?

Somebody on X was saying that they are having Sex Matters on tomorrow (possibly Helen Joyce), and Baroness Falkner EHRC next week.

I was listening on Monday and I felt sure that they proudly announced they would be covering a different aspect/view each day this week. Perhaps they've had to alter the roster of presenters (like I think they did for when they interviewed FWS remotely).

EweSurname · 13/05/2025 12:23

So while there was an actual consultation on self ID and a chance to influence legislation that would impact women’s rights, women’s hour remained schtum and didn’t inform its listeners so they could make important decisions about how to proceed.

However, now that women’s rights have been secured through a mechanism that is not as easy to challenge, this is the time they decide to air other opinions and make the ruling seem optional.

what the actual fuck

OldCrone · 13/05/2025 12:36

Datun · 13/05/2025 10:31

Quite.

Claiming that the changing room is full of undressing children and therefore men should be allowed in, isn't it quite the winning argument RMW thinks.

RMW is somehow equating a male baby or toddler being taken into the women's toilet (because you're obviously not going to leave them outside or send them into the men's on their own) with grown men with a womanly gender identity going into the women's toilet.

Is he suggesting that men with womanly gender identities need to be taken to the toilet by their mothers so that their mums can wipe their bums and change their nappies?

OldCrone · 13/05/2025 12:47

ThatPithySheep · 13/05/2025 11:13

It was éminence grise e.g someone who exerts influence without having power

So the "most marginalised" trans community have a retired high court judge and a law professor exerting influence on the government.

Thanks for letting us know that Robin.

RedToothBrush · 13/05/2025 12:49

OldCrone · 13/05/2025 12:36

RMW is somehow equating a male baby or toddler being taken into the women's toilet (because you're obviously not going to leave them outside or send them into the men's on their own) with grown men with a womanly gender identity going into the women's toilet.

Is he suggesting that men with womanly gender identities need to be taken to the toilet by their mothers so that their mums can wipe their bums and change their nappies?

Given the cross overs on this quite possibly tbh.

SirChenjins · 13/05/2025 13:12

If Robin's arguments for letting men in women's spaces are a reflection of his legal 'prowess' then god help his clients.

nutmeg7 · 13/05/2025 13:20

OldCrone · 13/05/2025 12:36

RMW is somehow equating a male baby or toddler being taken into the women's toilet (because you're obviously not going to leave them outside or send them into the men's on their own) with grown men with a womanly gender identity going into the women's toilet.

Is he suggesting that men with womanly gender identities need to be taken to the toilet by their mothers so that their mums can wipe their bums and change their nappies?

Don’t give them ideas..

RedToothBrush · 13/05/2025 13:22

SirChenjins · 13/05/2025 13:12

If Robin's arguments for letting men in women's spaces are a reflection of his legal 'prowess' then god help his clients.

Robin doesn't have to win to get paid.

SirChenjins · 13/05/2025 13:22

RedToothBrush · 13/05/2025 13:22

Robin doesn't have to win to get paid.

Which is just as well for Robin.

murasaki · 13/05/2025 13:23

It's a grifter's dream job.

Swipe left for the next trending thread