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!!!!!

💯

I think RMW makes this statement thinking that it gives GC women a taste of what it’s like to be othered. I doubt any GC women care about othering. We want the expectation for single sex provision to be understood as reasonable and proportionate and for it to be delivered.

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.

Wouldn't that potentially deprive lawyers of a number of lucrative gigs? /cynic

I wouldn't mind being 'outed' by using the TERF toilets.

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.

Perhaps naively I thought the supreme court /was/ the further legal action. What's left to test. "But does the law really mean to make me sad?"

Helen Joyce is appearing on WH this morning.

She’s gonna be dynamite! 🧨

There's a fairly obvious reason, as far as I can see. The Supreme Court had to decide between two positions. The FWS case was that the word "women" in the Equality Act referred to biological women. The Scottish government's case was that the word "women" referred to biological women, plus biological men with a GRC, and minus biological women with a GRC.

Crucially, the Scottish government recognised that the word "women" did not apply to biological men who had no GRC but simply identified as female.

The position of Stonewall, GLP, Mermaids and all the rest of the shower of idiots has for years been one of self-identification: anyone who says they're a woman is a woman. If they'd intervened in support of the Scottish government they'd have been arguing against their own position. They'd have had to admit, in fact, that they'd been misrepresenting the law for years.

I don’t think he does. He just enjoys forcing other people to say he does.

@RoyalCorgi Exactly my thought.

Load of (hairy) cock and balls. Also indicative of how TRAs are going for ways to overturn or nullify the SC ruling. Afaik no transwoman is a woman, whether they hold a GRC or not, they are men and excluded from women's spaces.

RMW has no grasp of why we need single sex spaces. He's thinking of it like a club all the year 4s want to be in, and he'll have the cool club and then we'll be sorry being in the sad non cool club. He has no clue what we're fighting for or why.

It's like when TRAs say 'well how'd you like to be misgendered, eh? How'd you like it if I called you he/him?' and they don't get that we wouldn't care, we'd think the person doing it was being weird but it wouldn't wound our very souls as they think it does.

Because we are not appearing as women, and we don't need to be seen as women, we are women. Whatever label is on the women's toilets, whatever stupid pronouns you use for us we will still be women because that is what we actually are. RMW will never understand that.

@RoyalCorgi that's a very interesting perspective which I hadn't considered before thank you. It had totally baffled me that none of the prominent trans rights orgs had applied to intervene, but that makes sense now.

IANAL by the way but have a degree in law.

What startles me is how poor peoples understanding of our legal system is when all you need to know is a google away.

I have read the secret barrister books which are well worth a read. He or she is of the view that everyone should be taught the basics at school and i agree.

An awful lot of people think if they do not like a legal decision one can appeal it as of right when one can only appeal with reasonable grounds.

What RMW said about third spaces being outing is interesting. He must think it's unlikely that the resource he needs, ie women, will use them alongside him. This brings me to the question of women who like to publicly state they are happy to use the same toilets as trans-identified men - surely they would use the third spaces without a second thought thus providing the resource RMW needs? They won't of course, for all the lip service they still exclusively used women's spaces which they would expect to be women-only, never having to test their principles. They don't really want strange men next to them, they just pretend they'd be okay with it for whatever unfathomable reason. So perhaps what RMW is really concerned about isn't being outed but rather being betrayed by the very people who say they support him but will never act on that. Disobedient support humans are so annoying I suppose.

Excellent point

What a lot of crap.
liads of people know what it’s like to be “othered” or “one of the onlys” for a multitude of identity based reasons. Ffs

Thanks @RoyalCorgi

The position of Stonewall, GLP, Mermaids and all the rest of the shower of idiots has for years been one of self-identification: anyone who says they're a woman is a woman. If they'd intervened in support of the Scottish government they'd have been arguing against their own position. They'd have had to admit, in fact, that they'd been misrepresenting the law for years.

Ive never seen this out so clearly in the last 4 weeks!

So I understand properly - 4WS won the first case against the fully inclusive/self ID definition of women? This second case for the GRC definition of women they lost twice in the lower courts until winning at the Supreme Court?

Prior to your explanation I couldn’t understand the total lack of proper intervenors. Makes total sense now

Wow @RoyalCorgi I think you are totally right there. I'd thought the "didn't want to be trashed in the media" was a weak excuse but couldn't think what was really behind it (other than the obvious we don't want to lose but then this case had already failed twice so surely the expectation was that they would win). Huh. Suddenly it makes a lot of sense.

What startles me is how poor peoples understanding of our legal system is when all you need to know is a google away.

But you aren't allowed to call them thick ...

Also, in my experience, a lot of "misunderstandings" are quite deliberate and always seem to work in the favour of the misunderstandee

It is a well known fact of life that if a persons livelihood depends on them "understanding" the world in a certain way, then all the science, evidence and proof won't change their mind.

As uncomfortable as it might be to be one of the first women in a male dominated area, or the first person of colour or in a wheelchair or openly gay at a particular workplace, those are the people who create acceptance and open the door to others.

https://translucent.org.uk/a-supremely-poor-job/

Robin wrote a blog post on why he's so cross with the Supreme Court ruling.

Reading the blog post now.

In the reference to the writings of Michael Falon does RMW perhaps mean Michael Foran?

Your link is interesting. This is the first time I’ve seen reference to a TGD community. I’m assuming this means trans and gender diverse. Is this the beginning of a separation from the LGB? It makes sense as they are two distinct protected characteristics in the EA2010.

I am not a lawyer but surely the key thing one expects from a barrister or solicitor is that they use language with precision and get the facts right. If you are right about this mistake, it doesn't reflect well on him.

"We could simplify society immensely by removing women from voting, property ownership, and working in the professions, but that would not be right."

Wow. That is so egregiously offensive I don't even know where to start.

It would not only be "not right", how exactly would it simplify society at all? Let alone immensely. Is this really what men think about us? Or is this a cack handed attempt to get us to consider how we would feel if put in the position of transgender people (the next paragraph talks about how "similarly" excluding transgender people is wrong)?

Either way it brings to mind the quote "Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority” and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person” and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay."