RMW and the potential of legal challenges re the SC Ruling

[Bannedontherun]

I listened to RMW on radio four today. I thought the interviewer was quite good at representing Women's view on access to single sex spaces, whilst giving RMW space to proffer his legal opinion, which was erm interesting.

The nub of RMW argument seems to be that trans people (biological males who have been around for many years including RMW), are now being told they are not women and cannot use women’s spaces.

And that this is the biggest affront to them, as in trans people who have been around just living their lives for 20 years plus are now going to have to adjust their lives.

Make of that what you will, i cannot possibly comment.

RMW did go on about neutral spaces “outing trans people” and that is why they need to use female spaces.

Again i cannot possibly comment.

He did not say much about women who believe they are men.

It does sound like RMW is trying to distance themself from “new age” trans people.

They did state there is no obligation for employers to police facilities, and that they would continue as usual as thus far has not been challenged.

Finally RMW said there are quite a few cases in the pipeline (i await with a keen eye)

On another posted podcast i listened to the solicitor representing the interveners in the SC case, on an American GC site, in which he pretty much opined i hope they do issue legal challenge, bring it on, and that Moylan et al seem to have no realistic strategy, other than to whinge and whine about their feelings. Hence the no wins situation.

He further stated that the reason that that judge and Whittle were not allowed to intervene was because random individuals were never allowed to. Contrary to what RMW claimed on Women’s hour which was no reasons were given.

All in all a damn good cheery day for me and IMHO nothing that needs to be worried about, apart from cake, popcorn supplies and getting sod all done WFH.

Cheers WIMS!!!!!

RMW, McCloud and Jolyon are a trainwreck. We have no need to worry as long as they are the best the TAs have. The thing is the TAs got entitled & let too many others in on their scam. Now they keep contradicting each other.

RMW is acting more and more unprofessional. Not going to help.

Sonia Sodha
Robin Moira White stands by use of the word “evil” in relation to EHRC chair Kishwer Faulkner on Women’s Hour. Very disappointing & unprofessional from a practicing barrister - completely inappropriate language to use about a public servant doing her job.

Thanks for the elaboration more would be welcome of course with verrrry careful wording lol

It is correct AFAIK that the Supreme Court didn’t give reasons as to why it declined to hear from Whittle and McCloud, but it is also a principle (that should be well understood by lawyers like W, McC and RMW) that the Supreme Court does not usually hear from individual interveners.

The fact these idiots went ahead and made the application (wasting lots of peoples crowd funded money) tells you all we need to know about how good they are at law.

Why would including a shouty TA have influenced the interpretation of THE LAW??? Facts don’t care about feelings.

Also raises the question why didn't GLP team up with Mermaids or any other trans charity to apply for intervention. Then they would have had grounds and would have been considered.

According to Joylon no groups were interested in joining with him because they didn't think it was worth it.

Given that GLP teamed up with Mermaids before and lost maybe the actual reason they wouldn't team up with GLP because they didn't like the idea of losing again.

Indeed, JM must also know the principles about intervening in the Supreme Court (or if he didn’t, should have found out if he really cared!).

Perhaps GLP are actually a stealth TERF organisation pretending to help trans people while their real purpose is to extract money from them and then do a really poor job of legal applications to ensure they never win?

McCloud, Whittle, Maugham, and White et al seem to be very unused to being told ‘no’. It must be quite a shock to the system, after years of being allowed to do whatever one wishes, to be told that this will no longer continue.

It’s very hard to have sympathy with people who don’t see women as people with their own needs and rights.

RMW compared themselves to a boy going into the loos with his mother. RMW knows he’s male.

I had a couple of hot rage flairs during that interview. @fromorbit has copied the ‘evil’ wording, which was shocking to hear, and @WarriorN has referred to the male ‘children in the ladies with their mothers’ obfuscation.

The self centred petulance was hard to hear.

Plus the othering of women from certain religious communities. Placing TW over and above these women.

I'm planning on giving myself a bit of a treat over the weekend and listen to all of these WH segments back to back. Should prove interesting. Then maybe complain to the BBC - how nice it would be if I didn't feel the need to do that, though.

I can't get my brain around this crew (Whittle, White, McCloud & Maugham) apparently not understanding the function of the SC. Is it some strategy or just plain old ignorance?

Also a 'trans voice' was heard in evidence, as Lui Asquith (NB they/them or something) constructed Amnesty's intervention, which was the only one not made public for some unfathomable reason.

At least you can then listen to sex matters from the Wednesday show - good palate cleanser.

I can't get my brain around this crew (Whittle, White, McCloud & Maugham) apparently not understanding the function of the SC. Is it some strategy or just plain old ignorance?

Rules, like reality and facts, are inconvenient.

When biology seems to be something you can reframe or deny, and you’ve had years of manipulating behind the scenes, recruited people to your cult-like extremist ideology by mastering the art of emotional blackmail, or spent your career ‘persuading’ or ‘ruling’ then I’m sure to some people it feels as if anything can and should be manipulated and re-written to suit their omnipotent way of thinking. That would account for their failure to realise that actually everything has its limits.

I never listen to it but why does women's hour constantly seem to be taken over by transwomen?

You know when a fish out of water is flapping around and gasping for breath. This is what we are observing now.

RMW, McCloud and Jolyon do not agree with the law. So what? They are not above the law. They have said nothing of substance. Bleating on the radio that 'it's not fair', is not going to change the law. They should stop, it's embarrassing.

Different crowd, this one challenging the EHRC guidance and its consultation period - doesn't quite seem worth its own thread but worth giggling at perhaps. (I'm not being over-optimistic here am I? It's not as though the EHRC has the power to produce guidance that contradicts the really rather clear SC ruling...) They're crowdfunding for it apparently. Something about a fool and zir money?
https://translucent.org.uk/

Erm what a load of utter twaddle. That is my legal analysis hope it clarifies.

What a load of regurgitated rubbish. Unbelievable that anyone could be taken in by this.
They're just another set of grifters as far as I can see.
Surely this bandwagon is full by now.

I feel that our legal profession should get out there and explain to the public how judicial review works in the UK. They can add a side order of explaining how the Supreme Court works.

There are lots of people out there - I couldn't possibly comment about GLP donors - who seem to think we have an American type system where Trump says "I'm going to sign a peace deal with Kim Jong Un" and the Democrats find some judge in Hawaii who issues an injunction saying the Korean War must continue.

I'm not seeing any viable litigation strategy here, though that may not matter if you're soliciting donations from a community that's already prone to magical thinking.

Well they are sensible enough to get a decent law firm Leigh Day involved. So if there is a legal loophole they should find it. However it looks pretty slim grounds, trying to claim the judgement isn't clear by doing a sidestep and blaming EHRC for stating the obvious seems unlikely to me but I guess we shall see.

"RMW did go on about neutral spaces “outing trans people” and that is why they need to use female spaces"
This makes no sense at all. How can being in a space anyone can use out someone. For a barrister, RMW doesn't seem to be very good at constructing coherent arguments.

Is RMW assuming only trans people would use the new spaces? Where they are available, lots of people use gender neutral spaces for a variety of reasons, eg a gender neutral toilet cubicle may be used by anyone wanting extra privacy, or because it's nearest, or if trans people are worried about it being 'outing' friends and allies could use them for political reasons. Likewise family style change cubicles could be used by families, people who are uncomfortable with their bodies, or simply prefer more privacy. If a space is available people will use it even when they shouldn't (eg accessible toilets and designated car parks), so it's highly unlikely well designed spaces wouldn't be embraced by a variety of people.

I fundamentally disagree with RMW et al’s position, but I understand their upset, frustration and motivation to change the law or the interpretation of the law that conflicts with their aims.

Had the SC ruling gone the other way, I would have got behind GC groups who were committed to changing the law so single sex provision could be single sex.

I imagine that if I were a TRA I would be feeling despondent about the chances of changing the law to enable some males to access female only provision. I imagine this to be the case because I imagine myself, as a TRA, evaluating the quality the legal arguments put forward by TRAs and GCs in the same way as I do now. In reality, if I had taken the leap to think that single sex provision is desirable/needed but it should not be single sex and that some males who think of themselves a certain way should be included, I would be unlikely to take a logical approach.

I think further legal action and appeals by TRAs are needed and will be helpful to test their claims. Until they do so, they will continue to claim that they are legally correct.

As/when the legal issues are clarified, they will still shout that the law is demonic and immoral. What remains to be seen is whether a new/different group of activist will gain traction, fighting to ensure third spaces are provided and afford dignity and safety. If it did, the OG TRAs are dust because the ‘be kind’ appeal will divert to supporting the new activist’s agenda. I think this is what sits behind JM, RMW et al’s desperation to fight against lawful provision of single sex spaces. If they stop, and if others start to get traction with, ‘if not this then what’s the next best thing’, they become nothing more than an extremist, fringe group of nutters in the eyes of the public and the media. This would represent the public and the media catching up with the GC world.

Don't forget all the allies - using the gender neutral facilities can replace putting pronouns in your bio. This can be a new way of showing your support!

RMW has suggested that third spaces are the solution but they should be provided for biological women who want to exclude males. I think his vision of this is that there are two mixed sex spaces that have different signs outside (a stick man and a stick man in a skirt) and then some enclosed cubicles with 666 written on the doors that are female only.

To avoid detriment claims, organisations would have to have banks and banks of 666 provision.

Could make it difficult for employers to estimate how much 666 provision they will need, if entry is based on a combination of sex + belief / sex + religion / sex + any other criteria such as preference or history of trauma. The number needed could fluctuate wildly from year to year in large organisations.