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.

Where are all these mythical men that look like women?

Because every single one of those in that clip absolutely doesn't.

Even the way they walk. It's bloody obvious.

And why do they even care?

If a man looks exactly like a woman, presumably, they'll have absolutely no problem whatsoever.

I don't think there's a single person on the planet who believes TRAs are fighting on behalf of the .025% of men who might be mistaken for a woman.

Apparently he thinks it gives him gravitas 😂

I think RW's argument is that yes they should be mixed sex, but single gender.

So one toilet for men, and everyone who identifies as one, irrespective of sex. Male gender.

And one for women, and anyone who identifies as one, also irrespective of sex. Female gender.

RMW can't possibly imagine he passes. The idea is ludicrous. I heard RMW for the first time ever on the radio yesterday. It was definitely a man's voice I heard. When I looked at a photo he also unsurprisingly looks like a man but with a bizarre matronly bosom I've not seen since the 1970s when visiting elderly relatives.

I dont know how old RMW is, maybe that's the look he's going for?

Yes, I understand that. But given two spaces that are now single-sex, mixed gender, why would they choose one above the other?

Does sex matter after all?

If we keep commenting on appearances this thread will break MN Talk guidelines.

Far enough 🙂
MN please feel free to delete my last post rather than the whole thread.

I'm probably misunderstanding you, but as far as he's concerned, he wants single gender. If they're mixed gender, it doesn't work.

But I think I see where you're coming from.

I was originally replying to the post that said RMW would still go in the female spaces, and not go in the male spaces, now that they are meant to be single sex.

My question is why? Both male and female spaces are mixed gender. Choosing one based on sex proves that RMW thinks sex is relevant, while telling us off for saying this.

I listened to the Peter Daly podcast earlier, and he reiterated that it was lesbian women who really influenced the Supreme Court.

The SC understood, instantly, that you cannot have men in lesbian spaces pretending they're women.

All this foot stamping isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference.

You could have the most passing of men imaginable, with everything in its place, all the surgery, the lot, and he still wouldn't be a lesbian.

And that's that.

No law can say okay, you can be a woman in the toilet, but absolutely nowhere else, okay?

I just don't understand the WH editorial decision to play an interview with a man before that of the Sex Matters team. I don't think I'll risk my blood pressure listening to this interview but do they explain it at all?

"Crikey, guess we at WH'd finally better have something on the most important legal decision for millions of women in the last fifteen years at the Supreme Court. We have 30+ million of them to choose from. Which woman in the land should we talk to first about the implications for female people that we've been studiously ignoring for the best part of a decade?

Scrolls contacts.

Ah! RMW"

WH have been the most enormous disappointment. I haven't listened for years but will have to make an exception and listen tomorrow. All the Sex Matters team are great but am quietly hoping for it to be Helen Joyce and for her to blow the bloody doors off...

Yes, I see what you mean.

And yes, sex has always been important. It's the entire point.

Yes I agree, sex is the whole issue, while they deny it even matters.

Just another illogical rabbit hole

Yes, Margaret Thatcher had voice training so as to speak in a lower register.

(She was trans by the way but did not know it.)

I post this only to point out RMWs confusion as to whether something happened or not, because on that clip with Sarah and on Robin's blog back in 2012 Robin says different things.

In that clip with regards Robin's voice and surgery Robin corrects Sarah's assumption and says "... I took an informed choice not to have that surgery..."

However, Robin said something completely different on his own blog (becomingmoira) on 30th May 2012 "... and so yesterday morning Prof Cheesman sliced across the front of my throat, pulled had on my vocal cords' mounting and stitched me up again..."

and 4th June 2012 "... I had my surgery on Tuesday morning and was discharged from hospital on Wednesday. By Thursday I could manage speech on a single high frequency..."

@MNHQ
You 'hid' my post an hour ago, and nothing more since.
The post simply linked to a barrister's own blog in which they explained the reasons for their decisions. Please let me know if that is not allowed.
Thank you.

It's not allowed, it's an automatic hide of post.

I linked to it in the deleted thread yesterday and they hid my post

Thank you.

[joins Beetle on the naughty step]

Do you know if that's the case with anyone's blog, or just RMW's?

I'm not sure to be honest, but we definitely now know RMWs is on auto-hide.

I suspect that RMW's choice not to alter their voice is a mix of reasons. I saw RMW interviewed on (the wonderful) Andrew Doyle's Free Speech Nation on the (dreaded) GB News. And fair play to RMW for agreeing to appear in that panel discussion. Very few TRAs will agree to civilised debate & probing questions.

In that discussion, RMW said that they relied on their voice professionally and needed their voice to be authoritative. The implication is that a man's voice is more authoritative than a woman's. And of course, RMW looks like a man as well.

Wanting womanhood, but not prepared to suffer patriarchal oppression.

At what age does Robin think little boys should not be in female facilities?

We already have the age of 8 which most people are in agreement with. Does Robin want it lowered to 6, or 4 or 12 months? Why does Robin want little boys under the age of 8 to have to use male facilities without their mother there?

More questions that answers here, Robin.

But that rather assumes only two genders which as we all know is transphobic because there are at least 300 different genders. One wonders if there need to be separate toilets for all of them and why.

We all know why separate toilets for sex - for safeguarding (for women as men - male bodied people whatever their inner feelings - commit almost all sex crimes and are bigger and stronger), privacy and dignity.

But why would you need different toilets for an indefinable inner essence that can't be perceived by anyone else?

Why? Because it's incriminating?

🤔🤐

It sounded like the proposal was men (to admit men and transmen (female)), women (women and transwomen (male)), and "religious women" who cannot share spaces with males.

is this not an admission that trans women are actually men, not women?

That's nice, thank you. We look as though we are having a lovely chat, and not very threatening to anyone. I look rather bemused, which is in keeping.